Factors predicting the scientific wealth of nations

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that economic affluence is one of the main predictors of the scientific wealth of nations. Yet, the link is not as straightforward as is often presented. First, only a limited set of relatively affluent countries is usually studied. Second, there are differences between equally rich countries in their scientific success. The main aim of the present study is to find out which factors can enhance or suppress the effect of the economic wealth of countries on their scientific success, as measured by the High Quality Science Index (HQSI). The HQSI is a composite indicator of scientific wealth, which in equal parts considers the mean citation rate per paper and the percentage of papers that have reached the top 1% of citations in the Essential Science Indicators (ESI; Clarivate Analytics) database during the 11-year period from 2008 to 2018. Our results show that a high position in the ranking of countries on the HQSI can be achieved not only by increasing the number of high-quality papers but also by reducing the number of papers that are able to pass ESI thresholds but are of lower quality. The HQSI was positively and significantly correlated with the countries’ economic indicators (as measured by gross national income and Research and Development expenditure as a percentage from GDP), but these correlations became insignificant when other societal factors were controlled for. Overall, our findings indicate that it is small and well-governed countries with a long-standing democratic past that seem to be more efficient in translating economic wealth into high-quality science

Across-time change and variation in cultural tightness-looseness

Cultural tightness-looseness, a dimension which describes the strength, multitude, and clarity of social norms in a culture, has proved significant in explaining differences between cultures. Although several studies have compared different cultures on this domain, this study is the first that targets both within-country differences and across-time variation in tightness-looseness. Using data from two nationally representative samples of Estonians, we found that the general tightness level had changed over a period of 10 years but the effect size of the change was small. A significant within country variance in 2002 had disappeared by 2012. Our results suggest that tightness-looseness, similarly to cultural value orientations, is a relatively stable and robust characteristic of culture–that is, change indeed takes place, but slowly. Future studies about across-time change and within-country variance in tightness-looseness should target more culturally diverse and socially divided societies

The elusive theory of everything

We applaud Baumert and colleagues’ ambitious idea to integrate personality processes, structure, and development into a single general theory with the aim of fully explaining people’s behavior across situations. However, we argue that building a general theory of human behavior, similarly to a Theory of Everything, may not only be less feasible, but also less meaningful, than it appears at first sight

Unusual configurations of personality traits Indicate multiple patterns of their coalescence

It is widely accepted that the Five Factor Model (FFM) is a satisfactory description of the pattern of covariations among personality traits, which supposedly fits, more or less adequately, every individual. As an amendment to the FFM, we propose that the customary five-factor structure is only a near-universal, because it does not fit all individuals but only a large majority of them. Evidences reveal a small minority of participants who have an unusual configuration of personality traits, which is clearly recognizable, both in self- and observer-ratings. We identified three types of atypical configurations of personality traits, characterized mainly by a scatter of subscale scores within each of the FFM factors. How different configurations of personality traits are formed, persist, and function needs further investigation

Subjective Well-Being and Self-Reported Health in Osteoarthritis Patients Before and After Arthroplasty

The main aim of the current study is to examine the changes in the components of subjective well-being (SWB) over time in patients with osteoarthritis who have undergone total hip or knee replacement surgery (arthroplasty). We are also interested in determining whether pre-operative ratings of self-reported health (SRH) status, as well as change in health status, can serve as predictors for postoperative levels of SWB. To this end, 50 participants who had been admitted to a hospital for arthroplasty completed the measures twice—first at the clinic one day before the surgery, and then at home approximately 4.5 months after the surgery. Despite the fact that there were substantial improvements in participants’ health and physical functioning after the arthroplasty, there were no changes in their ratings of general SRH, life satisfaction (LS), or negative affect (NA). The only change in SWB scores was in the level of positive affect (PA), which was significantly higher after surgery compared with the pre-operative measurement. LS, NA, and PA scores after arthroplasty were differentially predicted by health ratings, showing that, it is the cognitive-evaluative component of SWB (i.e., LS) that is mostly responsible for the association between general SRH and SWB while affective components (i.e., NA and PA) are primarily related to more specific health indicators. Our findings can assist physicians in their efforts to provide more realistic expectations for their patients undergoing surgery in terms of the physical and psychological outcome

The relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism in Europe

The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism in a sample of 50,417 individuals from 29 European countries using data from the European Social Survey Round 6 (2012). Social capital was measured in terms of generalized social trust and informal social networks; individualism–collectivism was operationalized via Schwartz’s Openness to Change–Conservation value dimension. Results from a hierarchical linear modeling analysis showed that less than 10% of variance in social capital indicators was found between countries, meaning that the level of social capital varies more substantively between individuals than between the countries. Openness to Change had a weak but statistically significant and positive relationship both with the indices of Generalized Social Trust and Informal Social Networks, which remained significant even when individual age, gender, education level, and domicile were controlled for. In sum, our findings show that the positive relationship between social capital and individualism that has been found at the cultural level also holds at the individual level: people who emphasize independent thought, action, and readiness to change are also more willing to believe that most people can be trusted and are more engaged in informal social networks. The relationship is, nevertheless, very weak and the strength of the association varies significantly across different European countries. This variation, however, cannot be explained by country differences in level of democracy or human development and the country’s wealth moderates only the individual level relationship between Openness to Change and Informal Social Networks. Our findings suggest that sources of social capital at the individual level can be found in people’s immediate social surroundings, as well as their everyday social interactions

The scientific impact derived From the disciplinary profiles

The disciplinary profiles of the mean citation rates across 22 research areas were analyzed for 107 countries/territories that published at least 3,000 papers that exceeded the entrance thresholds for the Essential Science Indicators (ESI; Clarivate Analytics) during the period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019. The matrix of pairwise differences between any two profiles was analyzed with a non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) algorithm, which recovered a two-dimensional geometric space describing these differences. These two dimensions, Dim1 and Dim2, described 5,671 pairwise differences between countries' disciplinary profiles with a sufficient accuracy (stress = 0.098). A significant correlation (r = 0.81, N = 107, p < 0.0001) was found between Dim1 and the Indicator of a Nation's Scientific Impact (INSI), which was computed as a composite of the average and the top citation rates. The scientific impact ranking of countries derived from the pairwise differences between disciplinary profiles seems to be more accurate and realistic compared with more traditional citation indices

Indicators of the scientific impact of nations revisited

An improved Indicator of a Nation’s Scientific Impact (INSI), which, in addition to citation rates, takes into account how many research areas in which each nation has exceeded the entrance thresholds of the Essential Science Indicators (ESI, Clarivate Analytics), was proposed. This indicator provided a more realistic estimate of nations’ scientific impact, which was better predicted from the societal factors that are related to the quality of scientific output. The strongest predictor of countries’ scientific impact was good governance, while economic wealth and research and development expenditure played a relatively minor role in predicting research impact. We conclude that good governance is needed to create an environment, which can facilitate the translation of money invested into the production of high-impact scientific output