Newly available technologies present expanding opportunities for scientific and technical information exchange

The potential for expanded communication among researchers, scholars, and students is supported by growth in the capabilities for electronic communication as well as expanding access to various forms of electronic interchange and computing capabilities. Research supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration points to a future where workstations with audio and video monitors and screen-sharing protocols are used to support collaborations with colleagues located throughout the world. Instruments and sensors all over the world will produce data streams that will be brought together and analyzed to produce new findings, which in turn can be distributed electronically. New forms of electronic journals will emerge and provide opportunities for researchers and scientists to electronically and interactively exchange information in a wide range of structures and formats. Ultimately, the wide-scale use of these technologies in the dissemination of research results and the stimulation of collegial dialogue will change the way we represent and express our knowledge of the world. A new paradigm will evolve-perhaps a truly worldwide 'invisible college'

Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management

This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full pape

Communities and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management

This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full pape

Communities and patterns of scientific collaboration

This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)This paper investigates the role of homophily and focus constraint in shaping collaborative scientific research. First, homophily structures collaboration when scientists adhere to a norm of exclusivity in selecting similar partners at a higher rate than dissimilar ones. Two dimensions on which similarity between scientists can be assessed are their research specialties and status positions. Second, focus constraint shapes collaboration when connections among scientists depend on opportunities for social contact. Constraint comes in two forms, depending on whether it originates in institutional or geographic space. Institutional constraint refers to the tendency of scientists to select collaborators within rather than across institutional boundaries. Geographic constraint is the principle that, when collaborations span different institutions, they are more likely to involve scientists that are geographically co-located than dispersed. To study homophily and focus constraint, the paper will argue in favour of an idea of collaboration that moves beyond formal co-authorship to include also other forms of informal intellectual exchange that do not translate into the publication of joint work. A community-detection algorithm is applied to the co-authorship network of the scientists that submitted in Business and Management in the 2001 UK RAE. While results only partially support research-based homophily, they indicate that scientists use status positions for discriminating between potential partners by selecting collaborators from institutions with a rating similar to their own. Strong support is provided in favour of institutional and geographic constraints. Scientists tend to forge intra-institutional collaborations; yet, when they seek collaborators outside their own institutions, they tend to select those who are in geographic proximity

DNA Repair: a spatially rooted analysis of the development of a scientific community

International audienceOur aim is to track the emergence of the DNA Repair field (1964-1975) using both bibliometric data and historical sources (interviews, archives, historical accounts). We intend to focus on the geographical diffusion of the research specialty: how did the scientific interest for DNA Repair mechanisms spread at the worldwide level? What role the first scientists specialized in the field play in the diffusion process? In order to localize specialized teams, we follow the use of the keyword “DNA Repair” in scientific publications indexed in bibliometric databases. At first, in analyzing a bibliometric corpus derived from Scopus we draw a general overview of the DNA Repair field geography during the emergence stage (1965-1975). For each territory, we localize the different teams involved in the scientific specialty from the beginning. In a second time, we focus on pioneers’ trajectories. In following individual trajectories with the help of both bibliometric materials and qualitative sources, we shed light on networks of places critical for the field’s diffusion

The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been argued that science and society are in the midst of a far-reaching renegotiation of the social contract between science and society, with society becoming a far more active partner in the creation of knowledge. On the one hand, new forms of knowledge production are emerging, and on the other, both science and society are experiencing a rapid acceleration in new forms of knowledge utilization. Concomitantly since the Second World War, the science underpinning the knowledge utilization field has had exponential growth. Few in-depth examinations of this field exist, and no comprehensive analyses have used bibliometric methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using bibliometric analysis, specifically first author co-citation analysis, our group undertook a domain analysis of the knowledge utilization field, tracing its historical development between 1945 and 2004. Our purposes were to map the historical development of knowledge utilization as a field, and to identify the changing intellectual structure of its scientific domains. We analyzed more than 5,000 articles using citation data drawn from the Web of Science^®. Search terms were combinations of knowledge, research, evidence, guidelines, ideas, science, innovation, technology, information theory and use, utilization, and uptake.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We provide an overview of the intellectual structure and how it changed over six decades. The field does not become large enough to represent with a co-citation map until the mid-1960s. Our findings demonstrate vigorous growth from the mid-1960s through 2004, as well as the emergence of specialized domains reflecting distinct collectives of intellectual activity and thought. Until the mid-1980s, the major domains were focused on innovation diffusion, technology transfer, and knowledge utilization. Beginning slowly in the mid-1980s and then growing rapidly, a fourth scientific domain, evidence-based medicine, emerged. The field is dominated in all decades by one individual, Everett Rogers, and by one paradigm, innovation diffusion.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that the received view that social science disciplines are in a state where no accepted set of principles or theories guide research (<it>i.e.</it>, that they are pre-paradigmatic) could not be supported for this field. Second, we document the emergence of a new domain within the knowledge utilization field, evidence-based medicine. Third, we conclude that Everett Rogers was the dominant figure in the field and, until the emergence of evidence-based medicine, his representation of the general diffusion model was the dominant paradigm in the field.</p

Studying co-authorship network dynamics throughout geographical trajectories of researchers: what part does mobility play?

The aim of this paper is to investigate the link between geographical mobility and co-authorship formation and dynamics. We propose a methodology based on matching bibliometric data and qualitative data recoded from CVs and semi-structured interviews. The case study of two prolific chemists (authors of 660 publications with 2,596 co-authors) located in the same laboratory shows that the difference in mobility behaviour does not have a strong incidence on the geography of their co-authorship

Visualising the intellectual and social structures of digital humanities using an invisible college model

This thesis explores the intellectual and social structures of an emerging field, Digital Humanities (DH). After around 70 years of development, DH claims to differentiate itself from the traditional Humanities for its inclusiveness, diversity, and collaboration. However, the ‘big tent’ concept not only limits our understandings of its research structure, but also results in a lack of empirical review and sustainable support. Under this umbrella, whether there are merely fragmented topics, or a consolidated knowledge system is still unknown. This study seeks to answer three research questions: a) Subject: What research topics is the DH subject composed of? b) Scholar: Who has contributed to the development of DH? c) Environment: How diverse are the backgrounds of DH scholars? The Invisible College research model is refined and applied as the methodological framework that produces four visualised networks. As the results show, DH currently contributes more towards the general historical literacy and information science, while longitudinally, it was heavily involved in computational linguistics. Humanistic topics are more popular and central, while technical topics are relatively peripheral and have stronger connections with non-Anglophone communities. DH social networks are at the early stages of development, and the formation is heavily influenced by non-academic and non-intellectual factors, e.g., language, working country, and informal relationships. Although male scholars have dominated the field, female scholars have encouraged more communication and built more collaborations. Despite the growing appeals for more diversity, the level of international collaboration in DH is more extensive than in many other disciplines. These findings can help us gain new understandings on the central and critical questions about DH. To the best of the candidate’s knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the formal and informal structures in DH with a well-grounded research model

The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. The review was chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, supported by an independent and multidisciplinary group of experts in scientometrics, research funding, research policy, publishing, university management and administration. This review has gone beyond earlier studies to take a deeper look at potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators. It has explored the use of metrics across different disciplines, and assessed their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact. It has analysed their role in processes of research assessment, including the next cycle of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It has considered the changing ways in which universities are using quantitative indicators in their management systems, and the growing power of league tables and rankings. And it has considered the negative or unintended effects of metrics on various aspects of research culture. The report starts by tracing the history of metrics in research management and assessment, in the UK and internationally. It looks at the applicability of metrics within different research cultures, compares the peer review system with metric-based alternatives, and considers what balance might be struck between the two. It charts the development of research management systems within institutions, and examines the effects of the growing use of quantitative indicators on different aspects of research culture, including performance management, equality, diversity, interdisciplinarity, and the ‘gaming’ of assessment systems. The review looks at how different funders are using quantitative indicators, and considers their potential role in research and innovation policy. Finally, it examines the role that metrics played in REF2014, and outlines scenarios for their contribution to future exercises