From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Oct 1 01:57:48 2009 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 07:57:48 +0200 Subject: Web-of-Science results of more than 100,000 items Message-ID: The Web of Science interface counts at most 100,000 retrieved items from a single query. If the query results in a dataset containing more than 100,000 items the number of retrieved items is indicated as >100,000. The problem studied here is how to find the exact number of items in a query that leads to more than 100,000 items. One way to achieve this objective is presented. The retrieval of the entire scientific production from the United States in a specific year (2007) is counted and an advanced search strategy is designed. Different sections of items can be retrieved using the Source field of the database. A Boolean statement was created with the aim of eliminating overlapped sections and improving the accuracy of this search strategy Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge, Loet Leydesdorff, Zaida Chinchilla-Rodr?guez, Ronald Rousseau and Soren W. Paris. Retrieval of very large numbers of items in the Web of Science: an exercise to develop accurate search strategies. El Profesional de la Informaci?n 2009;18(5):529-533. http://www.elprofesionaldelainformacion.com/ ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/wos09/wos09.pdf [preprint version] ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From nvaneck at ESE.EUR.NL Fri Oct 2 06:20:41 2009 From: nvaneck at ESE.EUR.NL (Nees Jan van Eck) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 12:20:41 +0200 Subject: VOSviewer Message-ID: Dear colleagues, For those of you who are interested in producing science maps based on bibliographic data, the following might be useful. We have developed a computer program for constructing and viewing science maps. The program is called VOSviewer and is freely available at www.vosviewer.com. The program can be used to produce maps of, for example, authors, journals, or keywords based on co-citation or co-occurrence data. Maps can be shown in various different ways, and zoom and scroll functionality is provided to examine maps in full detail. The program can easily handle large maps consisting of, for example, several thousands of objects. Any feedback on this project is greatly appreciated. Nees Jan van Eck Ludo Waltman ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck MSc Researcher Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl ======================================================== From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed Oct 14 07:22:28 2009 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:22:28 +0200 Subject: preprint meta-evaluation study Message-ID: A Meta-evaluation of Scientific Research Proposals: Different Ways of Comparing Rejected to Awarded Applications. Journal of Informetrics (forthcoming) Lutz Bornmann, Loet Leydesdorff, & Peter van den Besselaar Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. In both fields, awarded applicants perform on average better than all rejected applicants. If only the most preeminent rejected applicants are considered in both fields, they score better than the awardees on citation impact. With regard to productivity we find differences between the fields: While the awardees in life sciences outperform on average the most preeminent rejected applicants, the situation is reversed in social sciences. html-version at http://www.leydesdorff.net/meta-evaluation/index.htm PDF at http://www.leydesdorff.net/meta-evaluation/meta-evaluation.2009.pdf From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Oct 15 14:46:53 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:46:53 -0400 Subject: Richardson JW, McLeod S "Where should educational leadership authors publish to get noticed by the top journals in the discipline" Educational Administration Quarterly 45(4):631-639, October 2009 Message-ID: E-Mail: jayson.richardson at gmail.com TITLE :Where Should Educational Leadership Authors Publish to Get Noticed by the Top Journals in the Discipline? Author(s): Richardson JW (Richardson, Jayson W.)1, McLeod S (McLeod, Scott) 2 Source: EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY Volume: 45 Issue: 4 Pages: 631-639 Published: OCT 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 4 Citation Map Abstract: Purpose: The current study seeks to understand which journals have been recently cited by scholars publishing in the field of educational leadership (i.e., specifically publishing in Educational Administration Quarterly [EAQ] and Journal of School Leadership [JSL]). Method: The researchers recorded the name and number of occurrences of journals that appeared in the bibliographies of articles published in EAQ and JSL from 2000 to 2007. The total counts for EAQ and JSL were combined to reach a final count. All journals then were rank ordered according to frequency. Findings: Five main findings were noted in the current study. First, it was found that authors who contribute to these journals tend to reference a different set of periodicals compared to those that professors of educational leadership say they actually read. Second, two of the leading journals (EAQ and JSL) in the field of educational leadership may be reaching unique audiences. Third, of the top 25 cited journals, slightly more than one third of the articles cited in EAQ and JSL from 2000 to 2007 were published in those two journals. Fourth, 4 of the top 15 most cited journals are practitioner journals. Finally, the findings show where educational leadership authors should publish to get their work noticed by top scholars in the field. Conclusion: The current study adds a valuable factor influencing authors' choices of journals in which to publish their work: a journal's citation frequency. The citation patterns noted in the current article will help authors consider issues of spread and replicability when seeking suitable outlets to publish their scholarly work. Reprint Address: Richardson, JW (reprint author), Univ N Carolina Wilmington, Watson Sch Educ, Wilmington, NC USA Addresses: 1. Univ N Carolina Wilmington, Watson Sch Educ, Wilmington, NC USA 2. Iowa State Univ, UCEA, CASTLE, Iowa City, IA USA Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2455 TELLER RD, THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91320 USA IDS Number: 491TS ISSN: 0013-161X DOI: 10.1177/0013161X09331770 CITED REFERENCES: 1. CAMPBELL RF CRITIQUE OF THE EDUCATIONAL-ADMINISTRATION-QUARTERLY EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY 15 : 1 1979 2. HAAS E Assessing influence on the field: An analysis of citations to educational administration quarterly, 1979-2003 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY 43 : 494 DOI 10.1177/0013161X07299437 2007 3. MAYO CR Which journals are educational leadership professors choosing? EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY 42 : 806 DOI 10.1177/0013161X05282603 2006 4. MURPHY J Educational administration quarterly, 1979-2003: An analysis of types of work, methods of investigation, and influences EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY 43 : 612 DOI 10.1177/0013161X07307796 2007 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Oct 15 15:11:12 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:11:12 -0400 Subject: Egghe L. "A rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and a comparison with the impact factor rank-order distribution" Published online JASIST April 20, 2009 Message-ID: AUTHOR : EGGHE L. Universiteit Hasselt (UHasselt), Campus Diepenbeek, Agoralaan, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium email: Leo Egghe (leo.egghe at uhasselt.be) TITLE : A rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and a comparison with the impact factor rank-order distribution SOURCE : JASIST Received: 8 April 2009; Revised: ; Accepted: 20 April 2009 Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1002/asi.21121 About DOI Pages: 2142-2144 Universiteit Hasselt (UHasselt), Campus Diepenbeek, Agoralaan, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium Index Terms citation analysis ? author productivity ? analytic models ? impact factor ? Lotka's law Abstract We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykk? and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122441670/abstract Published Online: 5 Jun 2009 DOI: 10.1002/asi.21121 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Oct 17 10:20:50 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:20:50 -0400 Subject: Holden G, Barker K, Covert-Vail L, Rosenberg G, Cohen SA "Social Work Abstracts Fails Again A Replication and Extension " Message-ID: e-MAIL: gary.holden at nyu.edu TITLE :Social Work Abstracts Fails Again A Replication and Extension Author(s): Holden G (Holden, Gary)1, Barker K (Barker, Kathleen)2, Covert- Vail L (Covert-Vail, Lucinda)1, Rosenberg G (Rosenberg, Gary)3, Cohen SA (Cohen, Stephanie A.)4 Source: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Volume: 19 Issue: 6 Pages: 715-721 Published: NOV 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 48 Citation Map Abstract: Objective: According to a prior study, there are substantial lapses in journal coverage in the Social Work Abstracts (SWA) database. The current study provides a replication and extension. Method: The longitudinal pattern of coverage of thirty-three journals categorized in SWA as core journals (published in the 1989-1996 period) is examined. Results: The proportion of issues missing from SWA is significantly greater than 0, increase over time, and is significantly biased in favor of NASW journals. Conclusion: The errors in SWA reported here, combined with those previously reported, will exert a long-term negative impact on scholarship unless their existence becomes known to all SWA users and they take steps to compensate for the situation. Reprint Address: Holden, G (reprint author), NYU, New York, NY 10003 USA Addresses: 1. NYU, New York, NY 10003 USA 2. CUNY Medgar Evers Coll, New York, NY USA 3. Mt Sinai Sch Med, New York, NY USA 4. Mt Sinai Med Ctr, New York, NY USA Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2455 TELLER RD, THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91320 USA IDS Number: 503DL ISSN: 1049-7315 DOI: 10.1177/1049731508329392 CITED REFERENCES: 1.WRITING NASW PRESS J : 2008 2. *NASW FL PRES CONTR NEW DIR P : 2007 3. *SOC WORK LIB GROU- LIB GROUP BUS M MIN : 2000 4. BAKER DR ONLINE BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS FOR RESEARCHERS AND EDUCATORS JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 27 : 41 1991 5. BAKER DR - CITATION ANALYSIS - A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH & ABSTRACTS 26 : 3 1990 6. BARILAN J - A survey on the use of electronic databases and electronic journals accessed through the web by the academic staff of Israeli universities JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 29 : 346 2003 7. BEALL J - AM LIB 38 : 46 2007 8. BEEBE L - USERS GUIDE SOCIAL W : 1989 9. BRIGGS TL - CRITIQUE OF NASW MANPOWER STATEMENT - JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL WORK 11 : 9 1975 10. CLIFF N - ANAL MULTIVARIATE DA : 1987 11. COHEN D - OPEN LETT NASW REGAR : 2006 12. FLATLEY RK - Choosing a database for social work: A comparison of social work abstracts and social service abstracts JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 33 : 47 2007 13. GARFIELD E - How can impact factors be improved? BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 313 : 411 1996 14. GREEN R - Faculty publication project - Reply - JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 38 : 492 2002 15. HOLDEN G, Suggestions to improve social work journal editorial and peer-review processes: The San Antonio response to the Miami statement RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 18 : 66 DOI 10.1177/1049731507303496 2008 16. HOLDEN G, Does Social Work Abstracts work? RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 18 : 487 DOI 10.1177/1049731507308986 2008 17. HOLDEN G, An assessment of the predictive validity of impact factor scores: Implications for academic employment decisions in social work RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 16 : 613 DOI 10.1177/1049731506292570 2006 18. HOLDEN G, Tracing thought through time and space: A selective review of bibliometrics in social work SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE 41 : 1 DOI 10.1300/J010v41n03_01 2005 19. HOLDEN G, Shallow science or meta-cognitive insights: A few thoughts on reflection via bibliometrics SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE 41 : 129 DOI 10.1300/J010v41n03_09 2005 20. JACOBY BE, Resource selection for an interdisciplinary field: a methodology JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 90 : 393 2002 21. JACSO P, Analyzing the journal coverage of abstracting/indexing databases at variable aggregate and analytic levels LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH 20 : 133 1998 22. JENSON JM, Structural factors and the quality of publication in social work journals SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 29 : 67 2005 23. KEMP BE, Social policy research: Comparison and analysis of CD-ROM resources SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 21 : 111 1997 24. KIRK SA, J SOCIAL SERVICE RES 7 : 59 1984 25. KMETZ T, CHARLESTON ADVISOR 7 : 14 2005 26. LEIGHNINGER RD, J SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL W 33 : 9 2006 27. LINDSEY D, SCI PUBLICATION SYST : 1978 28. LINDSEY D, USING CITATION COUNTS AS A MEASURE OF QUALITY IN SCIENCE - MEASURING WHATS MEASURABLE RATHER THAN WHATS VALID SCIENTOMETRICS 15 : 189 1989 29. LINDSEY D, FURTHER EVIDENCE FOR ADJUSTING FOR MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP SCIENTOMETRICS 4 : 389 1982 30. LINDSEY D, THE ROLE OF SOCIAL-WORK JOURNALS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE PROFESSION, SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW 66 : 295 1992 31. LINDSEY D, PRODUCTION AND CITATION MEASURES IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE - THE PROBLEM OF MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 10 : 145 1980 32. MACROBERTS MH, PROBLEMS OF CITATION ANALYSIS - A CRITICAL-REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 40 : 342 1989 33. MACROBERTS MH, PROBLEMS OF CITATION ANALYSIS, SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH & ABSTRACTS 28 : 4 1992 34. MENDELSOHN HN, SEARCHING SOCIAL-WORK ABSTRACTS - A REVIEW DATABASE 9 : 22 1986 35. MENDELSOHN HN, SOCIAL-WORK ONLINE DATABASE 7 : 36 1984 36. MIDGLEY J, J SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL W 33 : 11 2006 37. PACHTER WS, Corporate funding and conflicts of interest - A primer for psychologists AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST 62 : 1005 DOI 10.1037/0003- 066X.62.9.1005 2007 38. PHELAN TJ, A compendium of issues for citation analysis SCIENTOMETRICS 45 : 117 1999 39. SCHILLING R, Peer review and publication standards in social work journals: The Miami statement SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 29 : 119 2005 40. SERINGHAUS MR, BMC BIOINFORMATICS 8 : 2007 41. SHEK DTL, Comprehensiveness of Social Work Abstracts as a database for researchers and practitioners RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 18 : 500 DOI 10.1177/1049731507314027 2008 42. SIEGEL S, NONPARAMETRIC STAT B : 1988 43. STRUG D, Fathers in the social work literature: Policy and practice implications FAMILIES IN SOCIETY-THE JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HUMAN SERVICES 84 : 503 2003 44. TAYLOR, J CITATION REPORTS : 2008 45. TAYLOR BJ, Hidden gems: Systematically searching electronic databases for research publications for social work and social care BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK 33 : 423 2003 46. TAYLOR BJ, EVALUATION AGEINFO D : 2006 47. TAYLOR BJ, RES SOCIAL WORK PRAC 17 : 697 2007 48. TOMAIUOLO NG, CD ROM WORLD : 79 1993 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Oct 17 10:25:39 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:25:39 -0400 Subject: Moshage H "Citation Classic Simple and Reliable Measurement of Nitric Oxide Metabolites in Plasma " Clinical Chemistry 55(10):1881-1882, October 2009 Message-ID: TITLE : Citation Classic Simple and Reliable Measurement of Nitric Oxide Metabolites in Plasma Author(s): Moshage H (Moshage, Han) Source: CLINICAL CHEMISTRY Volume: 55 Issue: 10 Pages: 1881- 1882 Published: OCT 2009 Reprint Address: Moshage, H (reprint author), Univ Groningen, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, POB 30-001, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands Addresses: 1. Univ Groningen, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, NL- 9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands E-mail Addresses: a.j.moshage at med.umcg.nl Publisher: AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2101 L STREET NW, SUITE 202, WASHINGTON, DC 20037-1526 USA IDS Number: 502PB ISSN: 0009-9147 DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.128710 CITED REFERENCES: 1. COERS W Specificity of antibodies to nitric oxide synthase isoforms in human, guinea pig, rat, and mouse tissues JOURNAL OF HISTOCHEMISTRY & CYTOCHEMISTRY 46 : 1385 1998 2. MOSHAGE H Determination of nitrite and nitrate in stored urine CLINICAL CHEMISTRY 44 : 1780 1998 3. MOSHAGE H Nitric oxide determinations: Much ado about NO center dot- thing? CLINICAL CHEMISTRY 43 : 553 1997 4. VANDERHOEVEN JA, TRANSPLANT INT 11 : S171 1998 5. VOS TA, Differential effects of nitric oxide synthase inhibitors on endotoxin-induced liver damage in rats GASTROENTEROLOGY 113 : 1323 1997 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Oct 17 10:38:44 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:38:44 -0400 Subject: Gomez-Mejia L, Trevino LJ, Mixon FG, Franklin G "Winning the tournament for named professorships in management " International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(9):1843-1863, 2009 Message-ID: E-mail: lgomez-mejia at mays.tamu.edu. TITLE : Winning the tournament for named professorships in management Author(s): Gomez-Mejia L (Gomez-Mejia, Luis)1, Trevino LJ (Trevino, Len J.) 2, Mixon FG (Mixon, Franklin G., Jr.)3 Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Volume: 20 Issue: 9 Pages: 1843-1863 Published: 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 77 Citation Map Abstract: We apply tournament theory to explain the process within which selection of named professorships takes place and a procedural justice test to justify winning the named professorship tournament. Specifically, we estimate the probability that management professors hold one of the highest rewards for academic research productivity, a named professorship, as a function of his or her research credentials, as measured by the number of articles published in a small core of elite management journals. Alphabetically, these are Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Operations Management, Management Science, Operations Research, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal. Although each of the eight journals is positively related to the probability of attaining a named professorship, the Academy of Management Review and the Academy of Management Journal emerge as the two most influential management journals. Reprint Address: Gomez-Mejia, L (reprint author), Texas A&M Univ, Dept Management, Mays Business Sch, Carroll & Dorothy Conn Chair New Ventures Leaders, College Stn, TX 77843 USA Addresses: 1. Texas A&M Univ, Dept Management, Mays Business Sch, Carroll & Dorothy Conn Chair New Ventures Leaders, College Stn, TX 77843 USA 2. Loyola Univ, Gerald N Gaston Eminent Scholar Chair Int Busines, Joseph A Butt SJ Coll Business, New Orleans, LA 70118 USA 3. Mercer Univ, Dept Econ, Sch Business & Econ, Macon, GA 31207 USA E-mail Addresses: lgomez-mejia at mays.tamu.edu Publisher: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND IDS Number: 498KF ISSN: 0958-5192 DOI: 10.1080/09585190903142316 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Oct 17 11:37:02 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:37:02 -0400 Subject: Hsieh PN, Chang PL "An assessment of world-wide research productivity in production and operations management " INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 120(2):540-551, August 2009 Message-ID: e-mail: pnhsieh at ntu.edu.tw TITLE : An assessment of world-wide research productivity in production and operations management Author(s): Hsieh PN (Hsieh, Pao-Nuan)1, Chang PL (Chang, Pao-Long)2 Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Volume: 120 Issue: 2 Special Issue: Sp. Iss. SI Pages: 540-551 Published: AUG 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 56 Citation Map Abstract: Journal publications are important to facilitate knowledge sharing among production and operations management (POM) academics and practitioners. The purpose of this study was to explore the global POM research performance based on papers published in 20 core POM journals in the past half century. The data for the study were obtained from Thomson Reuters' Web of Science/Knowledge databases, from 1959 to 2008, when 63,776 papers were published in POM journals. The annual distribution of papers published shows a significant growth in POM research productivity over the time period 1959 to 2008. The most productive authors in these five decades were T.C. Edwin Cheng from The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong; Gilbert Laporte from HEC Montreal, Canada; S.K. Goyal from Concordia University, Canada; S. Eilon from the University of London, UK; and Oded Berman from the University of Toronto, Canada. The five most productive institutions were as follows: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Columbia University, Purdue University, and the University of Michigan. The countries found to have the highest outputs were the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands and Taiwan. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Document Type: Article Language: English Author Keywords: Production and operations management; Scientific productivity; Bibliometric analysis KeyWords Plus: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY; RETAIL SUPPLY CHAINS; BIBLIOMETRIC DISTRIBUTIONS; FINANCE LITERATURE; BUSINESS-RESEARCH; RESEARCH OUTPUT; FUTURE-RESEARCH; POM RESEARCH; JOURNALS; PATTERNS Reprint Address: Hsieh, PN (reprint author), Natl Taiwan Univ, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, 1,Sect 4,Roosevelt Rd, Taipei 10617, Taiwan Addresses: 1. Natl Taiwan Univ, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, Taipei 10617, Taiwan 2. Feng Chia Univ, Dept Business Adm, Taichung 40724, Taiwan E-mail Addresses: pnhsieh at ntu.edu.tw Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS IDS Number: 497RO ISSN: 0925-5273 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.03.015 Cited References: 1. *THOMS CORP, J CIT REP SOURC DAT : 2007 2. ALEXANDER JC, RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF JOURNALS, AUTHORS, AND ARTICLES CITED IN FINANCIAL RESEARCH, JOURNAL OF FINANCE 49 : 697 1994 3. ANSARI A, INT J OPER PROD MAN 12 : 56 1992 4. BARMAN S, Perceived relevance and quality of POM journals: a decade later, JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 19 : 367 2001 5. BARMAN S, J OPERATIONS MANAGEM 10 : 194 1991 6. BOROKHOVICH KA, FINANCE RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY AND INFLUENCE, JOURNAL OF FINANCE 50 : 1691 1995 7. BOROKHOVICH KA, JOURNAL COMMUNICATION AND INFLUENCE IN FINANCIAL RESEARCH, JOURNAL OF FINANCE 49 : 713 1994 8. BRAUN T, A Hirsch-type index for journals, SCIENTIST 19 : 8 2005 9. BRAUN T, A Hirsch-type index for journals, SCIENTOMETRICS 69 : 169 DOI 10.1007/s11192-006-0147-4 2006 10. CHAN CK, Special issue on advanced modeling and innovative design of supply chain, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 113 : 499 DOI 10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.02.001 2008 11. CHANDY PR, THE IMPACT OF JOURNALS AND AUTHORS ON INTERNATIONAL- BUSINESS RESEARCH - A CITATIONAL ANALYSIS OF JIBS ARTICLES JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES 25 : 715 1994 12. CHANG PL, Bibliometric overview of Operations Research/Management Science research in Asia, ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH 25 : 217 2008 13. CHOI TM, Special section on logistics management in fashion retail supply chains, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 114 : 415 DOI 10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.02.002 2008 14. CHUNG KH, PATTERNS OF RESEARCH OUTPUT IN THE ACCOUNTING LITERATURE - A STUDY OF THE BIBLIOMETRIC DISTRIBUTIONS, ABACUS-A JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS STUDIES 28 : 168 1992 15. CHUNG KH, Citation patterns in the finance literature FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 30 : 99 2001 16. CHUNG KH, PATTERNS OF PRODUCTIVITY IN THE FINANCE LITERATURE - A STUDY OF THE BIBLIOMETRIC DISTRIBUTIONS, JOURNAL OF FINANCE 45 : 301 1990 17. CLAVER E, An analysis of research in information systems (1981-1997) INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT 37 : 181 2000 18. COE R, EVALUATING THE MANAGEMENT JOURNALS - A 2ND LOOK ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 27 : 660 1984 19. CORNELIUS B, Who's who in venture capital research TECHNOVATION 26 : 142 DOI 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.05.009 2006 20. GARFIELD E, CURRENT CONTENTS : 1994 21. GLOVER SM, ISSUES ACCOUNTING ED 21 : 195 2006 22. GOH C, J OPERATIONS MANAGEM 15 : 123 1997 23. GOH CH, An empirical assessment of influences on POM research OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 24 : 337 1996 24. GROVER V, AN ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY IN MIS DATA BASE 23 : 5 1992 25. HADJINICOLA GC, J APPL MATH DECISION : 1 2006 26. HANCOCK T, THE OMBUDSMAN - FACTORS INFLUENCING ACADEMIC RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY - A SURVEY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENTISTS, INTERFACES 22 : 26 1992 7. HECK JL, CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS AND INSTITUTIONS TO THE JOURNAL-OF- FINANCE - 1946-1985, JOURNAL OF FINANCE 41 : 1129 1986 28. HENRY WR, INSTITUTIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOLARLY JOURNALS OF BUSINESS, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS 47 : 56 1974 29. HIRSCH JE, An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 102 : 16569 DOI 10.1073/pnas.0507655102 2005 30. JAUNCH LR, MANAGE SCI 22 : 66 1975 31. JIANG B, China-related POM research: a literature review and suggestions for future research, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT 27 : 662 DOI 10.1108/01443570710756947 2007 32. JONES MJ, International publishing patterns: An investigation of leading UK and US accounting and finance journals JOURNAL OF BUSINESS FINANCE & ACCOUNTING 32 : 1107 2005 33. KNIGHT GA, Research productivity in the Journal of Business Research: 1985-1999 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 49 : 303 2000 34. KURATA H, Trade promotion mode choice and information sharing in fashion retail supply chains INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 114 : 507 DOI 10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.021 2008 35. LENHARD MS, Obstetrical and gynecological writing and publishing in Europe EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY 29 : 119 DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.08.007 2006 36. MALHOTRA MK, J OPERATIONS MANAGEM 14 : 55 1996 37. MAY RM, The scientific wealth of nations SCIENCE 275 : 793 1997 38. MOORE LJ, A STUDY OF INSTITUTIONAL PUBLICATIONS IN BUSINESS-RELATED ACADEMIC JOURNALS, 1972-78 QUARTERLY REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS 20 : 87 1980 39. NGAI EWT, RFID research: An academic literature review (1995-2005) and future research directions INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 112 : 510 2008 40. NIEMI AW, J MARKETING ED 10 : 8 1988 41. NIEMI AW, RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF AMERICAN-BUSINESS SCHOOLS, 1975-85 REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH 23 : 1 1988 42. OLSON JE, Top-25-business-school professors rate journals in operations management and related fields INTERFACES 35 : 323 DOI 10.1287/inte.1050.0149 2005 43. SALADIN B, OPERATIONS MANAGEMEN 3 : 3 1985 44. SCUDDER GD, J OPER MANAG 16 : 91 1998 45. SEGLEN PO, Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 314 : 498 1997 46. SHARPLIN AD, THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF JOURNALS USED IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH - AN ALTERNATIVE RANKING, HUMAN RELATIONS 38 : 139 1985 47. SHIM JP, SOCIOECONOMIC PLANNI 25 : 211 1993 48. SOTERIOU AC, J OPER MANAG 17 : 225 1999 49. STAHL MJ, PUBLICATION IN LEADING MANAGEMENT JOURNALS AS A MEASURE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 31 : 707 1988 50. VAAGEN H, Product variety arising from hedging in the fashion supply chains INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 114 : 431 2008 51. VOGEL DR, MIS RESEARCH - A PROFILE OF LEADING JOURNALS AND UNIVERSITIES, DATA BASE 16 : 3 1984 52. VOKURKA RJ, J OPERATIONS MANAGEM 14 : 345 1996 53. WEALE AR, BMC MED RES METHODOL 4 : 1 2004 54. WEBER RP, EVALUATIONS OF ACCOUNTING JOURNAL AND DEPARTMENT QUALITY ACCOUNTING REVIEW 56 : 596 1981 55. YOUNG ST, J OPERATIONS MANAGEM 14 : 41 1996 56. ZIVNEY TL, ISSUES ACCOUNTING ED 10 : 1 1995 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Oct 17 11:45:10 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:45:10 -0400 Subject: Yang H, Zhang JH, Zhang F. "Papers featured in the World Journal of Gastroenterology from 2006 to 2007"WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 15 (35):4471-4475, SEP 21 2009. Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: yangh at sj-hospital.org TITLE: Papers featured in the World Journal of Gastroenterology from 2006 to 2007 (Article, English) AUTHOR: Yang, H; Zhang, JH; Zhang, F SOURCE: WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 15 (35). SEP 21 2009. p.4471-4475 W J G PRESS, BEIJING ABSTRACT: AIM: To analyze papers published in the World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG) from 2006 to 2007. We investigated the highly cited papers for geographic distribution of the cited authors, as well as the distribution of the citing journals and year of citation. METHODS: Papers published in WJG from 2006 to 2007 and their citations were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). The papers and their citations were analyzed according to bibliometric methods, including the number of citations for a given paper, the distribution of the highly cited papers, the geographic distribution of the cited authors, and the years of citation. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and six papers published in WJG from 2006 to 2007 were collected through SCIE, and 2335 of these were categorized as articles, reviews or proceedings. In 2006 and 2007, the average citation rate was 85.08% and 70.48%, respectively, and the average number of citations per paper was 4.33 and 2.51. Among the 2506 papers, 1963 were cited 8788 times by other articles. The mean number of citations per paper was 3.51. The papers with over three citations accounted for 54.72% of all those that were cited, and the total number of citations accounted for 85.38% of the total of 8788 citations. Thirteen papers were cited over 30 times and the highest number of citations for any one paper was 98. The cited authors came from 70 different countries or regions, with China, Japan and the United States being the most frequent. The highest average citation rate and number of citations per paper were for authors from Canada (96.30%, 6.89), Hungary (92.31%, 5.62), Australia (88.46%, 5.46), Germany (87.04%, 5.33), and Spain (87.50%, 5.11). The impact factor was 2.081 and the self-citation rate was 9.41% in 2008. The papers published in WJG in 2006-2007 were cited by 1597 journals. CONCLUSION: The papers in WJG have a high number of citations, and have been cited in numerous journals by authors from various countries. The results imply that WJG has an influential academic profile in gastroenterology around the world. (C) 2009 The WIG Press and Baishideng. All rights reserved. AUTHOR ADDRESS: H Yang, China Med Univ, Lib Shengjing Hosp, 36,Sanhao St,Heping Dist, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Prov, Peoples R China 1. China Med Univ, Lib Shengjing Hosp, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Prov Peoples R China E-mail Addresses: yangh at sj-hospital.org Funding Acknowledgement: Funding Agency Grant Number Education Department of Liaoning Province 05W238 Supported by The Education Department of Liaoning Province, No. 05W238 Publisher: W J G PRESS, APT 1066, YISHOU GARDEN, NO 58, NORTH LANGXINZHUANG RD, PO BOX 2345, BEIJING 100023, PEOPLES R CHINA IDS Number: 497SB ISSN: 1007-9327 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.15.4471 CITED REFERENCES: 1. EGGHE L Average and global impact of a set of journals, SCIENTOMETRICS 36 : 97 1996 2. HANSSON S, IMPACT FACTOR AS A MISLEADING TOOL IN EVALUATION OF MEDICAL JOURNALS, LANCET 346 : 906 1995 3. YANG H, Citation classics in Fertility and Sterility, 1975-2004 FERTILITY AND STERILITY 86 : 795 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1477 2006 4. YANG H, A citation analysis of progress in biochemistry and biophysics 2000 similar to 2005, PROGRESS IN BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS 33 : 596 2006 5. YANG H, The top 40 citation classics in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, SCIENTOMETRICS 78 : 421 DOI 10.1007/s11192-007-2011-6 2009, 6. YANG H, Variations of author origins in World Journal of Gastroenterology during 2001-2007, WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 14 : 3108 DOI 10.3748/wjg.14.3108 2008 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Oct 17 11:56:12 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:56:12 -0400 Subject: Seckin D "Thoughts on Citation, Citation Analysis of the Articles Published in International Dermatology Journals by Turkish Dermatologists and the Top-Cited Articles" Turkderm-Archives of the Turkish Dermatology & Venerology 43(3):79-82 Sept 2009 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: denizs at baskent-ank.edu.tr TITLE : Thoughts on Citation, Citation Analysis of the Articles Published in International Dermatology Journals by Turkish Dermatologists and the Top- Cited Articles Author(s): Seckin D (Seckin, Deniz) Source: TURKDERM-ARCHIVES OF THE TURKISH DERMATOLOGY AND VENEROLOGY Volume: 43 Issue: 3 Pages: 79-82 Published: SEP 2009 Reprint Address: Seckin, D (reprint author), Baskent Univ, Dermatol Anabilim Dali, Tip Fak, 5 Sokak,48 Bahcelievler, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey Addresses: 1. Baskent Univ, Dermatol Anabilim Dali, Tip Fak, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey E-mail Addresses: denizs at baskent-ank.edu.tr Publisher: TURKISH SOC DERMATOLOGY VENEROLOGY, VAKIF GUREBA EGITIM VE ARASTIRMA HASTANESI DERMATOLOJI KLINIGI, ADNAN MENDERES BULVARI, FATIH- ISTANBUL 34296, TURKEY IDS Number: 497DH ISSN: 1019-214X CITED REFERENCES: 1. AK MZ, ATIF INDEKSLERINE GO : 2004 2. AL U, BILGI DUNYASI 9 : 263 2008 3. DOGAN M, ARASTIRMA MAKALELERI : 2009 4. HIRSCH JE, An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 102 : 16569 DOI 10.1073/pnas.0507655102 2005 5. STERN RS, Classic and near-classic articles in the dermatologic literature, ARCHIVES OF DERMATOLOGY 135 : 948 1999 6. UZBAY IT, SAGLIK BILIMLERINDE : 129 2007 7. WALTER G, Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA 178 : 280 2003 8. YURTSEVER E, SAGLIK BILIMLERI MUH : 2002 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Oct 17 12:09:13 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:09:13 -0400 Subject: Truex D, Cuellar M, Takeda H "Assessing Scholarly Influence: Using the Hirsch Indices to Reframe the Discourse" Journal of the Assoc for Information Sys 10(7):560-594, 2009 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: dtruex at gsu.edu, mcullar at nccu.edu, htakeda at cis.gsu.edu TITLE : Assessing Scholarly Influence: Using the Hirsch Indices to Reframe the Discourse Author(s): Truex D (Truex, Duane)1, Cuellar M (Cuellar, Michael)2, Takeda H (Takeda, Hirotoshi)1 Source: JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS Volume: 10 Issue: 7 Pages: 560-594 Published: 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 81 Citation Map Abstract: This study is part of a program aimed at creating measures enabling a fairer and more complete assessment of a scholar's contribution to a field, thus bringing greater rationality and transparency to the promotion and tenure process. It finds current approaches toward the evaluation of research productivity to be simplistic, atheoretic, and biased toward reinforcing existing reputation and power structures. This study examines the use of the Hirsch family of indices, a robust and theoretically informed metric, as an addition to prior approaches to assessing the scholarly influence of IS researchers. It finds that while the top tier journals are important indications of a scholar's impact, they are neither the only nor, indeed, the most important sources of scholarly influence. Other ranking studies, by narrowly bounding the venues included in those studies, distort the discourse and effectively privilege certain venues by declaring them to be more highly influential than warranted. The study identifies three different categories of scholars: those who publish primarily in North American journals, those who publish primarily in European journals, and a transnational set of authors who publish in both geographies. Excluding the transnational scholars, for the scholars who published in these journal sets during the period of this analysis, we find that North American scholars tend to be more influential than European scholars, on average. We attribute this difference to a difference in the publication culture of the different geographies. This study also suggests that the influence of authors who publish in the European journal set is concentrated at a moderate level of influence, while the influence of those who publish in the North American journal set is dispersed between those with high influence and those with relatively low influence. Therefore, to be a part of the top European scholar list requires a higher level of influence than to be a part of the top North American scholar list. Reprint Address: Truex, D (reprint author), Georgia State Univ, J Mack Robinson Coll Business, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA Addresses: 1. Georgia State Univ, J Mack Robinson Coll Business, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA 2. N Carolina Cent Univ, Durham, NC USA E-mail Addresses: dtruex at gsu.edu, mcullar at nccu.edu, htakeda at cis.gsu.edu publisher: ASSOC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, GEORGIA STATE UNIV, 35 BROAD STREET, STE 916-917, ATLANTA, GA 30303 USA IDS Number: 496KN ISSN: 1536-9323 From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Oct 18 09:14:23 2009 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:14:23 +0200 Subject: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index Message-ID: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: the journals Leonardo and Art Journal? and ?Digital Humanities? as a topic Abstract: The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. However, any document set contained in the ISI domain can be used for bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis. Furthermore, we explore the possibilities and limitations of the construction of a quasi-JCR for the A&HCI (2008). At http://www.leydesdorff.net/ah08/cited/index.htm and http://www.leydesdorff.net/ah08/citing/index.htm cosine-normalized citation matrices for all 1,157 source journals to the A&HCI are brought online in Pajek format. We compare the maps of two art journals -- Leonardo and Art Journal -- in terms of how they inform us about the relevant citation environments, both cited and citing. Using animations, the presence and reproduction of structure can be examined. The journals share a common knowledge base in their reference patterns, but their cultural impact is much wider than the limited domain of the A&HCI. ?Digital humanities? is additionally analyzed as a topic. The topic seems to function as an intellectual focus more than the journals. Availaible in html at http://www.leydesdorff.net/ahci/index.htm As PDF at http://www.leydesdorff.net/ahci/ahci.pdf Loet Leydesdorff & Alkim Almila Akdag Salah ** apologies for cross-postings From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 16:09:59 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:09:59 -0400 Subject: Lavie P. "The race for impact factor" Journal of Sleep Research 18(3):283-284, September 2009 Message-ID: TITLE : The race for the impact factor Author(s): Lavie P (Lavie, Peretz) Source: JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH Volume: 18 Issue: 3 Pages: 283- 284 Published: SEP 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 13 Citation Map Document Type: Editorial Material Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC, COMMERCE PLACE, 350 MAIN ST, MALDEN 02148, MA USA IDS Number: 482ZC ISSN: 0962-1105 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2009.00778.x CITED REFERENCES: 1. BJORVATN B The association between sleep duration, body mass index and metabolic measures in the Hordaland Health Study JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH 16 : 66 2007 2. FALAGAS ME The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS 56 : 223 DOI 10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5 2008 3. FOGEL SM Learning-dependent changes in sleep spindles and Stage 2 sleep JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH 15 : 250 2006 4. GARFIELD E, NEW FACTORS IN EVALUATION OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE THROUGH CITATION INDEXING, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION 14 : 195 1963 5. GARFIELD E, The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 295 : 90 2006 6. GOLUBIC R, Calculating impact factor: How bibliographical classification of journal items affects the impact factor of large and small journals, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 14 : 41 DOI 10.1007/s11948- 007-9044-3 2008 7. KILLGORE WDS, Impaired decision making following 49 h of sleep deprivation, JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH 15 : 7 2006 8. LOWRY OH, J BIOL CHEM 193 : 275 1951 9. RUSSO PM, Sleep habits and circadian preference in Italian children and adolescents, JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH 16 : 163 2007 10. SEGLEN PO, Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 314 : 498 1997 11. SEGLEN PO, CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE CITEDNESS AND JOURNAL IMPACT - JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 45 : 1 1994 12. SOUTHERN EM, DETECTION OF SPECIFIC SEQUENCES AMONG DNA FRAGMENTS SEPARATED BY GEL-ELECTROPHORESIS, JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY 98 : 503 1975 13. TUCKER AM, Trait interindividual differences in the sleep physiology of healthy young adults, JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH 16 : 170 2007 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 16:17:55 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:17:55 -0400 Subject: Brischoux F, Cook TR, "Juniors seek an end to the Impact Factor Race" Bioscience 59(8):638-639, September 2009 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: francois.brischoux at gmail.com, timothee.cook at gmail.com TITLE: Juniors Seek an End to the Impact Factor Race Author(s): Brischoux F (Brischoux, Francois)1,2, Cook TR (Cook, Timothee R.) 1,3 Source: BIOSCIENCE Volume: 59 Issue: 8 Pages: 638-639 Published: SEP 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 7 Citation Map Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Reprint Address: Brischoux, F (reprint author), CNRS, Ctr Etud Biol Chize, Villiers En Bois, France Addresses: 1. CNRS, Ctr Etud Biol Chize, Villiers En Bois, France 2. Univ Sydney, Sch Biol Sci, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia 3. Univ Cape Town, DST INRF Ctr Excellence, Percy FitzPatrick Inst African Ornithol, ZA-7700 Rondebosch, South Africa E-mail Addresses: francois.brischoux at gmail.com, timothee.cook at gmail.com Publisher: AMER INST BIOLOGICAL SCI, 1444 EYE ST, NW, STE 200, WASHINGTON, DC 20005 USA IDS Number: 491PS ISSN: 0006-3568 DOI: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.2 CITED REFERENCES : 1. ALBERTS B, Reviewing peer review, SCIENCE 321 : 15 DOI 0.1126/science.1162115 2008 2. CHERUBINI P, Impact factor fever, SCIENCE 322 : 191 2008 3. CLAPHAM P, Publish or perish, BIOSCIENCE 55 : 390 2005 4. COLQUHOUN D, Challenging the tyranny of impact factors NATURE 423 : 479 DOI 10.1038/423479a 2003 5. LAWRENCE PA, The politics of publication - Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. NATURE 422 : 259 DOI 10.1038/422259a 2003 6. NOTKINS AL Neutralizing the impact factor culture, SCIENCE 322 : 191 2008 7. RAFF M, Painful publishing, SCIENCE 321 : 36 2008 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 16:24:56 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:24:56 -0400 Subject: Chan KC, Chan KC, Seow GS, Tam K "Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note" Accounting Organizations and Society 34(6-7):875-885, August-October 2009 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: kchan at pace.edu, johnny.chan at wku.edu, Gseow at business.uconn.edu, Tam at csc.albany.edu TITLE : Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note Author(s): Chan KC (Chan, Kam C.)1, Chan KC (Chan, Kam C.)2, Seow GS (Seow, Gim S.)3, Tam K (Tam, Kinsun)4 Source: ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY Volume: 34 Issue: 6-7 Pages: 875-885 Published: AUG-OCT 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 17 Citation Map Abstract: Prior literature on accounting journal rankings has provided different journal lists depending on the type of examination (citations- vs. survey-based) and the choice of journals covered. A recent study by Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, and Young (2006) [Bonner, S., Hesford, A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, M. S. (2006). The most influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7). 663- 685] documents disproportionately more citations in the financial accounting area, suggesting a financial accounting bias in the accounting literature. We use citations from accounting dissertations completed during 1999-2003 to provide a ranking of accounting journals. The database allows us to assess the research interests of new accounting scholars and the literature sources they draw from. Another innovation is our ranking of accounting journals based on specialty areas (auditing, financial, managerial, tax, systems, and other) and research methods (archival, experimental, modeling, survey, and other). To mitigate the financial accounting bias documented by Bonner et al. (2006), we derive a ranking metric by scaling (normalizing) the journal citations by the number of dissertations within each specialty area and research method. Overall, the top journals are, JAR, AOS, TAR, and JAE We also provide evidence that top journal rankings do vary by specialty area as well as by research methods. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Document Type: Article Language: English Reprint Address: Chan, KC (reprint author), Pace Univ, Dept Accounting, Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA Addresses: 1. Pace Univ, Dept Accounting, Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA 2. Western Kentucky Univ, Dept Finance, Bowling Green, KY 42101 USA 3. Univ Connecticut, Dept Accounting, Storrs, CT 06269 USA 4. SUNY Albany, Dept Accounting, Albany, NY 12222 USA E-mail Addresses: kchan at pace.edu, johnny.chan at wku.edu, Gseow at business.uconn.edu, Tam at csc.albany.edu Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 491SM ISSN: 0361-3682 DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2008.12.002 CITED REFERENCES : 1. BALLAS A Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal perceptions CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 20 : 619 2003 2. BEATTIE VA ACCOUNTING BUSINESS 36 : 65 2006 3. BONNER SE The most influential journals in academic accounting ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY 31 : 663 DOI 10.1016/j.aos.2005.06.003 2006 4. BRINN T ACCOUNT BUSINESS RES 26 : 265 1996 5. BROWN LD CONTEMP ACCOUNT RES 11 : 223 1994 6. BROWN LD REV QUANTITATIVE FIN 20 : 291 2003 7. CHAN KC ACCOUNTING IN PRESS : 2009 8. GARFIELD E CITATION ANALYSIS AS A TOOL IN JOURNAL EVALUATION - JOURNALS CAN BE RANKED BY FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF CITATIONS FOR SCIENCE POLICY STUDIES SCIENCE 178 : 471 1972 9. HALL T ADV ACCOUNTING 9 : 161 1991 10. HERRON TL J ACCOUNTING ED 22 : 175 2004 11. HULL RP ACCOUNTING HORIZONS 4 : 77 1990 12. JOLLY SA ACCOUNTING ED J 7 : 47 1995 13. LOWENSOHN S ISSUES ACCOUNTING ED 21 : 219 2006 14. NOBES CW BR ACCOUNT REV 18 : 7 1986 15. REINSTEIN A CRIT PERSPECT 17 : 457 2006 16. SCHROEDER RG ACCOUNTING ED J 1 : 1 1988 17. SMITH SW HEALTH COMMUN 6 : 1 1994 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 16:39:07 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:39:07 -0400 Subject: Schneider JW "An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in norway " European Political Science 8(3):364-378, September 2009 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: jws at db.dk TITLE : An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in norway Author(s): Schneider JW (Schneider, Jesper W.) Source: EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE Volume: 8 Issue: 3 Pages: 364- 378 Published: SEP 2009 Times Cited: 1 References: 35 Citation Map Abstract: This article outlines and discusses the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. It is argued that the indicator is novel and innovative as compared to the indicators used in other funding models. It compares institutions based on all their publication-based research activities across all disciplines. Specific incentives are given to researchers to focus their publication behaviour on the most 'prestigious' publication channels within the different fields. Such aims necessitate a documentation system based on high-quality data, and require differentiated publication counts as the basic measure. Experience until now suggests that the indicator works as intended. Document Type: Proceedings Paper Language: English Author Keywords: bibliometric indicators; performance-based funding; research institutions; publication counts KeyWords Plus: CO-AUTHORSHIP; SCIENCE; IMPACT; CONSEQUENCES Reprint Address: Schneider, JW (reprint author), Royal Sch Lib & Informat Sci, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7K, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark Addresses: 1. Royal Sch Lib & Informat Sci, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark E-mail Addresses: jws at db.dk Publisher: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD, BRUNEL RD BLDG, HOUNDMILLS, BASINGSTOKE RG21 6XS, HANTS, ENGLAND IDS Number: 486FQ ISSN: 1680-4333 DOI: 10.1057/eps.2009.19 CITED REFERENCES : 1. BUTLER L, HDB QUANTITATIVE SCI : 340 2004 2. BUTLER L, MONITORING AUSTR SCI : 2001 3. CICCHETTI DV, THE RELIABILITY OF PEER-REVIEW FOR MANUSCRIPT AND GRANT SUBMISSIONS - A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 14 : 119 1991 4. DEBACKERE K, 10 INT SCI TECHN IND 2008 123 5. DEBACKERE K, Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key, SCIENTOMETRICS 59 : 253 2004 6. GLANZEL W, P WIS 2008 BERL 4 IN : 2008 7. GLANZEL W, National characteristics in international scientific co- authorship relations, SCIENTOMETRICS 51 : 69 2001 8. GLANZEL W, Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry, SCIENTOMETRICS 50 : 199 2001 9. GLANZEL W, LITTLE SCIENTOMETRICS, BIG SCIENTOMETRICS ... AND BEYOND SCIENTOMETRICS 30 : 375 1994 10. GLASER J, CHANGING GOVERNANCE : 101 2007 11. GUENA A, MINERVA 41 : 277 2003, 12. HARZING AWK, ETHICS SCI ENV POLIT 8 : 61 2008 13. HICKS D, HDB QUANTITATIVE SCI : 473 2004 14. HICKS D, The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences SCIENTOMETRICS 44 : 193 1999 15. KATZ JS, BIBLIOMETRIC INDICAT : 1999 16. KOGAN M, EVALUATING HIGHER ED : 11 1989 17. LANGFELDT L, The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 31 : 820 2001 18. LEYDESDORFF L, Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 59 : 278 DOI 10.1002/asi.20743 2008 19. LIEFNER I, Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems , HIGHER EDUCATION 46 : 469 2003 20. MARTIN BR, ASSESSING BASIC RESEARCH - SOME PARTIAL INDICATORS OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS IN RADIO ASTRONOMY, RESEARCH POLICY 12 : 61 1983 21. MEHO LI, Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 58 : 2105 DOI 10.1002/asi.20677 2007 22. MOED HF, CITATION ANAL RES EV : 2005 23. MOED HF, THE USE OF BIBLIOMETRIC DATA FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF UNIVERSITY-RESEARCH PERFORMANCE, RESEARCH POLICY 14 : 131 1985 24. MORAVCSIK MJ, RES POLICY 2 : 266 1973 25. PERSSON O, Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies SCIENTOMETRICS 60 : 421 2004 26. SANDSTROM U 200818R UTG HOGSK 2008 27. SANDSTROM U METRICS ACAD SCI APP : 2007 28. SIVERTSEN G 10 INT SCI TECHN IND 2008 126 29. SIVERTSEN G 9 INT SCI TECHN IND 2006 133 30. SMITH LC CITATION ANALYSIS LIBRARY TRENDS 30 : 83 1981 31. VANRAAN AFJ Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods SCIENTOMETRICS 62 : 133 2005 32. VANRAAN AFJ Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises SCIENTOMETRICS 36 : 397 1996 33. VANRAAN AFJ WEB KNOWLEDGE FESTSC : 301 2000 34. WEINGART P Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? SCIENTOMETRICS 62 : 117 2005 35. WHITLEY R CHANGING GOVERNANCE 26 : 3 1916 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 16:43:10 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:43:10 -0400 Subject: Shiu-Wan Hung, An-Pang Wang "A small world in the patent citation network" 2008 IEEE International conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management p.1-5, 2008 Message-ID: TITLE : A small world in the patent citation network Author(s): Shiu-Wan Hung; An-Pang Wang Source: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management Pages: 1-5 Published: 2008 Conference Information: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management Singapore, Singapore, 8-11 December 2008 Abstract: The goal of this report is to characterize the small world phenomenon in the patent citations network by analyzing the data of TFT- LCDs patents. The empirical results suggest that the patent citation network can indeed be characterized as "small world". Additionally, the patent citation network resembles the power-law connectivity distribution and exhibits preferential connectivity behavior. Furthermore, as a patent with high betweenness centrality is removed from the citation network, 50.6% of the patent knowledge communication will be limited. The result of this analysis will provide a specific way for managers to map their own patent networks and derive insight into the best ways to navigate within such networks. Accession Number: 10443232 Document Type: Conference Paper Language: English Treatment: Practical Controlled Indexing: citation analysis; patents Uncontrolled Indexing: patent citation network; TFT-LCDs patents; preferential connectivity behavior; patent knowledge communication Classification Codes: C7240 Information analysis and indexing; C0230B Legal aspects of computing Author Address: Shiu-Wan Hung; An-Pang Wang; Dept. of Bus. Adm., Nat. Central Univ., Tao-Yuan, Taiwan Publisher: IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA Number of References: 29 U.S. Copyright Clearance Center Code: 978-1-4244-2630-0/08/$25.00 Standard Book Number: 978-1-4244-2629-4 DOI: 10.1109/IEEM.2008.4737821 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 16:55:23 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:55:23 -0400 Subject: Lansingh VC, Carter MJ "Does Open Access in Ophthalmology Affect How Articles Are Subsequently Cited in Research?" Opthalmology 116(8):1425-`431, August 2009 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: mearter at strategic-solutions.inc.com TITLE : Does Open Access in Ophthalmology Affect How Articles Are Subsequently Cited in Research? Author(s): Lansingh VC (Lansingh, Van C.)2,3,4, Carter MJ (Carter, Marissa J.)1 Source: OPHTHALMOLOGY Volume: 116 Issue: 8 Pages: 1425-1431 Published: AUG 2009 Times Cited: 1 References: 14 Citation Map Abstract: Objective: To determine whether the concept of open access affects how articles are cited in the field of ophthalmology. Design: Type of meta-analysis. Participants: Examination of 480 articles in ophthalmology in the experimental protocol and 415 articles in the control protocol. Methods: Four subject areas were chosen to search the ophthalmology literature in the PubMed database using the terms "cataract," "diabetic retinopathy," "glaucoma," and "refractive errors." Searching started in December of 2003 and worked back in time to the beginning of the year. The number of subsequent citations for equal numbers of both open access and closed access (by subscription) articles was quantified using the Scopus database and Google search engine. Number of authors, article type, country/region in which the article was published, language, and funding data were also collected for each article. A control protocol was also carried out to ascertain that the sampling method was not systematically biased by matching 6 ophthalmology journals (3 open access, 3 closed access) using their impact factors, and employing the same search methodology to sample open access and closed access articles. Main Outcome Measures: Number of citations. Results: The total number of citations was significantly higher for open access articles compared to closed access articles for Scopus (mean 15.2 versus 11.5, P < .0005, Mann-Whitney U = 20029, and Google (mean 6.4 versus 4.0, P < .0005, Mann-Whitney U = 21281). However, univariate general linear model (GLM) analysis showed that access was not a significant factor that explained the citation data. Author number, country/region of publication, subject area, language, and funding were the variables that had the most effect and were statistically significant. Control protocol results showed no significant difference between open and closed access articles in regard to number of citations found by Scopus: open access: mean 17.8; SD (standard deviation) = 23.70; closed access: mean = 19.1; SD = 20.31; Mann- Whitney test, P = 0.730, Mann-Whitney U = 20584. Conclusions: Unlike other fields of science, open access thus far has not affected how ophthalmology articles are cited in the literature. Financial Disclosure(s): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. Ophthalmology 2009; 116:1425-1431 (C) 2009 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Document Type: Article Language: English KeyWords Plus: JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; CITATION ADVANTAGE; ASSOCIATION Reprint Address: Carter, MJ (reprint author), Strateg Solut Inc, 1143 Salsbury Ave, Cody, WY 82414 USA Addresses: 1. Strateg Solut Inc, Cody, WY 82414 USA 2. Fdn Vis, Asuncion, Paraguay 3. Fdn Hugo Nano, Buenos Aires, DF Argentina 4. IAPB, Buenos Aires, DF Argentina E-mail Addresses: mearter at strategic-solutions.inc.com Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010- 1710 USA IDS Number: 480CT ISSN: 0161-6420 DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.052 CITED REFERENCES: 1. PLOS MED 3 : E291 2006 2. DAVIS PM Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 337 : ARTN a568 2008 3. DAVIS PM Author-Choice Open-Access Publishing in the Biological and Medical Literature: A Citation Analysis JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 60 : 3 DOI 10.1002/asi.20965 2009 4. EYSENBACH G Citation advantage of open access articles PLOS BIOLOGY 4 : 692 ARTN e157 2006 5. FAN JC Citation analysis of the most influential authors and ophthalmology journals in the field of cataract and corneal refractive surgery 2000-2004 CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY 36 : 54 DOI 10.1111/j.1442- 9071.2008.01674.x 2008 6. GARFIELD E The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 295 : 90 2006 7. GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXES FOR SCIENCE - NEW DIMENSION IN DOCUMENTATION THROUGH ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS SCIENCE 122 : 108 1955 8. GOSS DA Citation patterns in the optometric and ophthalmologic clinical binocular vision literature OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE 83 : 895 2006 9. KURMIS AP Current concepts review - Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME 85 : 2449 2003 10. LIESEGANG TJ The Open Access initiative in scientific and biomedical publishing: Fourth in the series on editorship AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 139 : 156 DOI 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.10.010 2005 11. MUELLER PS The association between impact factors and language of general internal medicine journals SWISS MEDICAL WEEKLY 136 : 441 2006 12. NORRIS M The citation advantage of open-access articles JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 59 : 1963 DOI 10.1002/asi.20898 2008 13. PASTERKAMP G Citation frequency: A biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles SCIENTOMETRICS 70 : 153 DOI 10.1007/s11192-007-0109-5 2007 14. WREN JD Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific publications shared via the internet BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 330 : 1128 2005 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 17:01:54 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:01:54 -0400 Subject: Jacso P "Five-year impact factor data in the Journal Citation Reports" Online Information Review 33(3):603-614, 2009 Message-ID: e-mail: jacso at hawaii.edu TITLE : Five-year impact factor data in the Journal Citation Reports Author(s): Jacso P (Jacso, Peter) Source: ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW Volume: 33 Issue: 3 Pages: 603- 614 Published: 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 41 Citation Map Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the five-year journal impact factor (JIF) score of the Journal Citation Reports VCR). Design/methodology/approach - The paper looks at one of the important enhancements to the JCR, the new five-year journal impact factor (JIF) score. This element complements the traditional JIF scores and data. The new indicator addresses the criticism against the short citation window for evaluating the performance of nearly 8,000 scholarly and professional journals on a medium term. Findings - It may be feasible that some of the other proposals presented by the best scientometricians for improving the JIF and its alternatives will be implemented in various specialty editions of JCR. Particularly interesting would be the adding of scores computed through diachronous instead of or in addition to synchronous measurement; creating new indicators based on the level of uncitedness of articles in journals; and calculating percentile JIF, JIF point averages and/or JIFs based on article count, with or without self-citations. Originality/value - The five-year mid-term JIF complements very well the short-term two-year JIF for indicating the prestige, reputation and influence of the journals through the prism of the average productivity of journals and the citedness counts of articles published in the journals for a longer time span. As mentioned above, breaking down the various indicators by disciplinary and subdisciplinary categories, or even by the language and the country of publication of the journals (not the country affiliation of the authors) can provide further insight into the landscape of scholarly publishing. Document Type: Article Language: English Author Keywords: Serials; Reports KeyWords Plus: INDICATORS; SCIENCE; MANAGEMENT; INDEX; INDIA; PERFORMANCE; LIBRARIES Reprint Address: Jacso, P (reprint author), Univ Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Addresses: 1. Univ Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND IDS Number: 480BC ISSN: 1468-4527 DOI: 10.1108/14684520910969989 CITED REFERENCES: 1. *THOMS REUT NEW J CITATION REPOR : 2009 2. ARUNACHALAM S Is science in India on the decline? CURRENT SCIENCE 83 : 107 2002 3. ARUNACHALAM S Science in India - A profile based on India's publications as covered by Science Citation Index 1989-1992 CURRENT SCIENCE 74 : 433 1998 4. ARUNACHALAM S How relevant is medical research done in India? A study based on Medline CURRENT SCIENCE 72 : 912 1997 5. BALABAN M AD TO DA RE 1 : 1 2002 6. BOLLEN J Journal status SCIENTOMETRICS 69 : 669 2006 7. BORNMANN L ETHICS SCI ENV POLIT 8 : 93 2008 8. BUTLER L ETHICS SCI ENV POLIT 8 : 83 2008 9. CHRISTOV CV PROG PART NUCL PHYS 37 : 1 1996 10. FRANDSEN TF Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 56 : 58 DOI 10.1002/asi.20100 2005 11. GARFIELD E NEW FACTORS IN EVALUATION OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE THROUGH CITATION INDEXING AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION 14 : 195 1963 12. GARFIELD E Use of Journal Citation Reports and Journal Performance Indicators in measuring short and long term journal impact CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL 41 : 368 2000 13. GARFIELD E ESSAYS INFORMATION S 13 : 185 1990 14. GARFIELD E The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 295 : 90 2006 15. GARFIELD E I had a dream ... about uncitedness SCIENTIST 12 : 10 1998 16. GLANZEL W The multi-dimensionality of journal impact SCIENTOMETRICS 78 : 355 DOI 10.1007/s11192-008-2166-9 2009 17. HARNAD S ETHICS SCI ENV POLIT 8 : 103 2008 18. JACSO P A deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals: The journal impact factor CORTEX 37 : 590 2001 19. JACSO P As we may search - Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases CURRENT SCIENCE 89 : 1537 2005 20. JACSO P The number game ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW 24 : 180 2000 21. KETCHAM CM The proper use of citation data in journal management ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS 56 : 357 DOI 10.1007/s00005-008-0039-9 2008 22. LEYDESDORFF L Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 59 : 278 DOI 10.1002/asi.20743 2008 23. MARKPIN T Article-count impact factor of materials science journals in SCI database SCIENTOMETRICS 75 : 251 DOI 10.1007/s11192-007-1860-3 2008 24. MCVEIGH ME PHYSIOLOGIST 47 : 458 2004 25. MOED HF IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATIONS JOURNAL IMPACT FACTORS JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 46 : 461 1995 26. MOED HF Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact SCIENTOMETRICS 46 : 575 1999 27. MOED HF THE APPLICATION OF BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS - IMPORTANT FIELD-DEPENDENT AND TIME-DEPENDENT FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED SCIENTOMETRICS 8 : 177 1985 28. NISONGER TE Use of the Journal Citation Reports for serials management in research libraries: An investigation of the effect of self-citation on journal rankings in library and information science and genetics COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 61 : 263 2000 29. NISONGER TE A METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE CONCERNING THE USE OF SOCIAL-SCIENCES CITATION INDEX JOURNAL CITATION REPORTS IMPACT FACTOR DATA FOR JOURNAL RANKING LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS-PRACTICE AND THEORY 18 : 447 1994 30. NISONGER TE The benefits and drawbacks of impact factor for journal collection management in libraries SERIALS LIBRARIAN 47 : 57 2004 31. PENDLEBURY DA The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS 57 : 1 DOI 10.1007/s00005- 009-0008-y 2009 32. ROUSSEAU R Observations concerning the two- and three-year synchronous impact factor, based on the Chinese Science Citation Database JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 57 : 349 2001 33. ROUSSEAU R Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues LIBRARY TRENDS 50 : 418 2002 34. ROUSSEAU R Median and percentile impact factors: A set of new indicators SCIENTOMETRICS 63 : 431 DOI 10.1007/s11192-005-0223-1 2005 35. ROWLANDS I Journal diffusion factors: a new approach to measuring research influence ASLIB PROCEEDINGS 54 : 77 2002 36. SEGLEN PO Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 314 : 498 1997 37. SOMBATSOMPOP N An evaluation of research performance for different subject categories using Impact Factor Point Average (IFPA) index: Thailand case study SCIENTOMETRICS 65 : 293 DOI 10.1007/s11192-005-0275-2 2005 38. VANLEEUWEN TN Characteristics of Journal Impact Factors: The effects of uncitedness and citation distribution on the understanding of journal impact factors SCIENTOMETRICS 63 : 357 DOI 10.1007/s11192-005-0217-z 2005 39. WEALE AR BMC MED RES METHODOL 4 : 2004 40. WILSON CS Informetrics ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 34 : 107 1999 41. WORMELL I Informetric analysis of the international impact of scientific journals: How 'international' are the international journals? JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 54 : 584 1998 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 17:07:41 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:07:41 -0400 Subject: Tang J, Zhang J, "A Discriminative Approach to Topic-Based Citation Recommendation " Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in AI Vol:5476, p.572-579, 2009 Message-ID: TITLE : A Discriminative Approach to Topic-Based Citation Recommendation Author(s): Tang J (Tang, Jie)1, Zhang J (Zhang, Jing)1 Editor(s): Theeramunkong T; Kijsirikul B; Cercone N; Ho TB Source: ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY AND DATA MINING, PROCEEDINGS Book Series: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Volume: 5476 Pages: 572-579 Published: 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 12 Citation Map Conference Information: 13th Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge and Data Mining Bangkok, THAILAND, APR 27-30, 2009 Sirindhorn Int Inst Technol; Thammasat Univ; Chulalonkorn Univ; Asian Inst Technol; Natl Elect & Comp Technol Ctr; Thailand Convent & Exhibit Bureau; AF Off Sci Res, Asian Off Aerosp Res & Dev Abstract: In this paper, we present a study of a novel problem, i.e. topic- based citation recommendation, which involves recommending papers to be referred to. Traditionally, this problem is usually treated as an engineering issue and dealt with using heuristics. This paper gives a formalization of topic-based citation recommendation and proposes a discriminative approach to this problem. Specifically, it proposes a two- layer Restricted Boltzmann Machine model, called RBM-CS, which can discover topic distributions of paper content and citation relationship simultaneously. Experimental results demonstrate that RBM-CS can significantly outperform baseline methods for citation recommendation. Document Type: Proceedings Paper Language: English Reprint Address: Tang, J (reprint author), Tsinghua Univ, Dept Comp Sci & Technol, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China Addresses: 1. Tsinghua Univ, Dept Comp Sci & Technol, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China Publisher: SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, HEIDELBERGER PLATZ 3, D-14197 BERLIN, GERMANY IDS Number: BKN07 ISSN: 0302-9743 ISBN: 978-3-642-01306-5 CITED REFERENCES; 1. BUCKLEY C P 27 ANN INT ACM SIG : 25 2004 2. CRASWELL N TREC 2005 C NOT : 199 2005 3. GARFIELD E CITATION ANALYSIS AS A TOOL IN JOURNAL EVALUATION - JOURNALS CAN BE RANKED BY FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF CITATIONS FOR SCIENCE POLICY STUDIES SCIENCE 178 : 471 1972 4. HINTON GE A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets NEURAL COMPUTATION 18 : 1527 2006 5. HINTON GE Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence NEURAL COMPUTATION 14 : 1771 2002 6. KESSLER MM BIBLIOGRAPHIC COUPLING BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION 14 : 10 1963 7. MCNEE SM CSCW 02 NEW ORL LOUI : 116 2002 8. SMOLENSKY P INFORM PROCESSING DY : 194 1986 9. STROHMAN T P 30 ANN INT ACM SIG : 705 2007 10. TANG J KDD 2008 : 990 2008 11. WELLING M P 17 NEUR INF PROC S : 2005 12. XING EP P 21 ANN C UNC ART I : 633 2005 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 19 17:13:32 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:13:32 -0400 Subject: Qian TY, Srivastava J, Peng ZY, Sheu PCY, "Simultaneously finding fundamental articles and new topics using a community tracking method" Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in AI, p.796-803, 2009 Message-ID: TITLE : Simultaneously Finding Fundamental Articles and New Topics Using a Community Tracking Method Author(s): Qian TY (Qian, Tieyun)1, Srivastava J (Srivastava, Jaideep), Peng ZY (Peng, Zhiyong), Sheu PCY (Sheu, Phillip C. Y.)1 Editor(s): Theeramunkong T; Kijsirikul B; Cercone N; Ho TB Source: ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY AND DATA MINING, PROCEEDINGS Book Series: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Volume: 5476 Pages: 796-803 Published: 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 16 Citation Map Conference Information: 13th Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge and Data Mining Bangkok, THAILAND, APR 27-30, 2009 Sirindhorn Int Inst Technol; Thammasat Univ; Chulalonkorn Univ; Asian Inst Technol; Natl Elect & Comp Technol Ctr; Thailand Convent & Exhibit Bureau; AF Off Sci Res, Asian Off Aerosp Res & Dev Abstract: In this paper, we study the relationship between fundamental articles and new topics and present a new method to detect recently formed topics and its typical articles simultaneously. Based on community partition, the proposed method first identifies the emergence of a new theme by tracking the change of the community where the top cited nodes lie. Next, the paper with a high citation number belonging to this new topic is recognized as a fundamental article. Experimental results on real dataset show that our method can detect new topics with only a subset of data in a timely manner, and the identified papers for these topics are found to have a long lifespan and keep receiving citations in the future. Document Type: Proceedings Paper Language: English Author Keywords: Community tracking; Fundamental article finding; New topic identification Reprint Address: Qian, TY (reprint author), Wuhan Univ, State Key Lab Software Engn, 16 Luojiashan Rd, Wuhan 430072, Hubei Peoples R China Addresses: 1. Wuhan Univ, State Key Lab Software Engn, Wuhan 430072, Hubei Peoples R China Publisher: SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, HEIDELBERGER PLATZ 3, D-14197 BERLIN, GERMANY IDS Number: BKN07 ISSN: 0302-9743 ISBN: 978-3-642-01306-5 CITED REFERENCES: 1. BLEI DM Latent Dirichlet allocation JOURNAL OF MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH 3 : 993 2003 2. BOLLEN J INFORM PROCESSING MA 41 : 2005 3. BRIN S WWW7 COMPUTER NETWOR 30 : 107 1998 4. CAHLIK T SCIENTOMETRICS 49 : 2000 5. GARFIELD E CITATION ANALYSIS AS A TOOL IN JOURNAL EVALUATION - JOURNALS CAN BE RANKED BY FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF CITATIONS FOR SCIENCE POLICY STUDIES SCIENCE 178 : 471 1972 6. GRIFFITHS TL Finding scientific topics PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 101 : 5228 DOI 10.1073/pnas.0307752101 2004 7. KLEINBERG JM Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment JOURNAL OF THE ACM 46 : 604 1999 8. KUHN TS STRUCTURE SCI REVOLU : 1970 9. LEHMANN S MEASURES MISMEASURES : 2005 10. LEICHT EA Large-scale structure of time evolving citation networks EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B 59 : 75 DOI 10.1140/epjb/e2007-00271-7 2007 11. MEI Q P 11 SIGKDD : 2005 12. NEWMAN MEJ PHYS REV E 59 : 2004 13. STEYVERS M P 10 ACM SIGKDD : 2004 14. WANG X P 12 ACM SIGKDD : 2006 15. WASSERMAN S SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL : 1994 16. ZHOU D P 7 ICDM : 2007 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Oct 21 22:38:54 2009 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:38:54 -0400 Subject: Arzheimer K, Schoen H "Isolated and well networked? A comparative exploration of the publication practice in PVS" Politische Vierteljahresschrift 50(3):604-626, September 2009 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: arzheimer at politik.uni-mainz.de, harald.schoen at uni-bamberg.de TITLE : Isolated and well networked? A comparative exploration of the publication practice in PVS Author(s): Arzheimer K (Arzheimer, Kai)1,2, Schoen H (Schoen, Harald)3 Source: POLITISCHE VIERTELJAHRESSCHRIFT Volume: 50 Issue: 3 Pages: 604-626 Published: SEP 2009 Times Cited: 0 References: 47 Citation Map Abstract: Citations and co-publications are one important indicator of scientific communication and collaboration. By studying patterns of citation and co- publication in four major European Political Science journals (BJPS, PS, PVS and A-ZP), we demonstrate that compared to the conduits of communication in the natural sciences, these networks are rather sparse. British Political Science, however, is clearly less fragmented than its German speaking counterpart. Reprint Address: Arzheimer, K (reprint author), Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Inst Polit Wissensch, Colonel Kleinmann Weg 2, D-55099 Mainz, Germany Addresses: 1. Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Inst Polit Wissensch, D-55099 Mainz, Germany 2. Univ Essex, Dept Govt, Colchester CO4 3SQ, Essex England 3. Otto Friedrich Univ Bamberg, Lehrstuhl Polit Soziol, D-96045 Bamberg, Germany E-mail Addresses: arzheimer at politik.uni-mainz.de, harald.schoen at uni- bamberg.de Publisher: VS VERLAG SOZIALWISSENSCHAFTEN-GWV FACHVERLAGE GMBH, ABRAHAM- LINCOLN-STR 46, 65189 WIESBADEN, GERMANY IDS Number: 499AB ISSN: 0032-3470 DOI: 10.1007/s11615-009-0149-y CITED REFERENCES: 1. *MLA TASK FORC EV REP MLA TASK FORC EV : 2006 2. *WISS AUFG KRIT VERF EV WI : 2008 3. AHMED A Visualisation and analysis of the internet movie database Asia-Pacific Symposium on Visualisation 2007, Proceedings : 17 2007 4. ARENDES C POLITIKWISSENSCHAFT : 2004 5. ARMINGEON K SWISS POLITICAL SCI 3 : 1 1997 6. BLEEK W GESCH POLITIKWISSENS : 2001 7. BLEEK W SCHULEN DTSCH POLITI : 1999 8. BROOKS TA ENCY LIB INFORMAT S8 43 : 48 1988 9. CARTER D Under the influence? Intellectual exchange in political science PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS 41 : 375 DOI 10.1017/S104909650808058X 2008 10. CHANDRA K REPORT APSA WORKING : 2006 11. CREWE I REPUTATION, RESEARCH AND REALITY - THE PUBLICATION RECORDS OF UK DEPARTMENTS OF POLITICS, 1978-1984 SCIENTOMETRICS 14 : 235 1988 12. DALE T Article citation rates and productivity of Australasian political science units 1995-2002 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 40 : 425 DOI 10.1080/10361140500203951 2005 13. DENOOY W EXPLORATORY SOCIAL N : 2005 14. DOGAN M NEW HDB POLITICAL SC : 97 1996 15. DUBOIS BL ENGL SPECIF PURP 13 : 47 1988 16. FAAS T POLITIKWISSENSCHAFT 139 : 33 2008 17. FALTER JW POLITIKWISSENSCHAFT : 2003 18. FISHER BS How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS 31 : 847 1998 19. GARAND JC Journals in the discipline: A report on a new survey of American political scientists PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS 36 : 293 2003 20. GILES MW Ranking political science journals: Reputational and citational approaches PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS 40 : 741 DOI 10.1017/S1049096507071181 2007 21. GLANZEL W Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies LIBRARY TRENDS 50 : 461 2002 22. GOODIN RE EUROPEAN POLITICAL S 1 : 41 2002 23. GOODIN RE NEW HDB POLITICAL SC : 3 1996 24. HARA N An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 54 : 952 DOI 10.1002/asi.10291 2003 25. HEFFNER AG AUTHORSHIP RECOGNITION OF SUBORDINATES IN COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 9 : 377 1979 26. HIX S POLITICAL STUDIES RE 2 : 293 2004 27. HYLAND K DISCIPLINARY DISCOUR : 2004 28. JERVIS R Politics, political science, and specialization PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS 35 : 187 2002 29. KAPPELHOFF P METHODEN NETZWERKANA : 39 1986 30. KLINGEMANN HD THE POLITICAL-SCIENCE 400 PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS 22 : 258 1989 31. KLINGEMANN HD RANKING THE GRADUATE DEPARTMENTS IN THE 1980S - TOWARD OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE INDICATORS P S 19 : 651 1986 32. KNOKE D SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL : 2008 33. LEAHEY E Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 38 : 425 DOI 10.1177/0306312707086190 2008 34. LIN Y Fragmentation of the intellectual structure of political communication study: Some empirical evidence SCIENTOMETRICS 47 : 143 2000 35. MELIN G Pragmatism and self-organization - Research collaboration on the individual level RESEARCH POLICY 29 : 31 2000 36. MERTON RK J LEGAL POLITICAL SO 1 : 115 1942 37. MERTON RK MATTHEW EFFECT IN SCIENCE SCIENCE 159 : 56 1968 38. MILGRAM S PSYCHOL TODAY 2 : 60 1967 39. NEWMAN MEJ The structure of scientific collaboration networks PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 98 : 404 2001 40. NORRIS RP AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS IN CJNR - 1970-1991 SCIENTOMETRICS 28 : 151 1993 41. PETERS HPF STRUCTURING SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES BY CO-AUTHOR ANALYSIS - AN EXERCISE ON A UNIVERSITY-FACULTY LEVEL SCIENTOMETRICS 20 : 235 1991 42. PLUMPER T EUROPEAN POLITICAL S 6 : 41 2007 43. PLUMPER T Who becomes professor and when? Determinants of professorial recruitment in German political science POLITISCHE VIERTELJAHRESSCHRIFT 48 : 97 2007 44. PLUMPER T Publications and citation of German political science departments in international journals, 1990-2002: A bibliometric analysis POLITISCHE VIERTELJAHRESSCHRIFT 44 : 529 2003 45. SCHMITTER P EUROPEAN POLITICAL S 1 : 23 2002 46. SCOTT J SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL : 2000 47. VEEN HJ ENTWICKLUNGSLINIEN P : 7 1982 From Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU Wed Oct 28 16:24:14 2009 From: Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU (Armbruster, Chris) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:24:14 +0100 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the European Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear from colleagues interested in this issue. Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 Abstract The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed and then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. The conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the European Research Council (ERC), which ?found fundamental problems related to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern ?frontier? science management.? The organization threatens to defeat the mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well funded. This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA as second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended to innovation systems. To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive to or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations systems. Keywords Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets Chris Armbruster Executive Director, Research Network 1989 http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ Publications and working papers available in Open Access http://ssrn.com/author=434782 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Oct 29 03:22:39 2009 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:22:39 +0100 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities In-Reply-To: <454C4EFF24E347449521ABDC1B63025D0367AE97@MAILSRV1.iue.private> Message-ID: Dear Chris, The situation is very interesting. National research councils traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the 1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by national research councils. With the shift of attention to science as central to the knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the EU? Best wishes, Loet On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the European > Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear from > colleagues interested in this issue. > > Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research > organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite > targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). > > Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > > Abstract > The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of > the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research > organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and > technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed and > then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. The > conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the > European Research Council (ERC), which ?found fundamental problems related > to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and > operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern > ?frontier? science management.? The organization threatens to defeat the > mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well > funded. > This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on > targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring > about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the > organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA as > second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of > organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological > breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward > organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made > how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the > European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European > flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended > to innovation systems. > To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should > remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that > accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive to > or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations > systems. > > Keywords > Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, > European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, > research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets > > > Chris Armbruster > Executive Director, Research Network 1989 > http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ > > Publications and working papers available in Open Access > http://ssrn.com/author=434782 > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; From Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU Thu Oct 29 06:48:18 2009 From: Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU (Armbruster, Chris) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:48:18 +0100 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Message-ID: Dear Loet, One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the European scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of that very same elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency that comes with it, e.g. in the selection of peer reviewers. The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now an important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And yes, there is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what 'joint programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New Renaissance Dream' whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and technological breakthroughs. Also, in the past decade the Commission has intervened on the question of university and research organizations and, at least nominally, these organizations have responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, EIROfroum) and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or excellence, i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national level this is an issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative. The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and the national governments, but above all the research organizations and universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not targets, money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being left behind by North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms of the articulated European Research Dream - which is shared by many leading scholars (c.f. those organising the ERC or Euroscience or those advising the EC) - the organizational restructuring for more autonomy, more scientific leadership, more mission-oriented flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should be the imperative governing their actions. Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs Despite Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities. (October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22 To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Chris, The situation is very interesting. National research councils traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the 1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by national research councils. With the shift of attention to science as central to the knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the EU? Best wishes, Loet On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the European > Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear from > colleagues interested in this issue. > > Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research > organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite > targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). > > Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > > Abstract > The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of > the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research > organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and > technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed and > then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. The > conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the > European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related > to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and > operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern > 'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the > mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well > funded. > This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on > targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring > about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the > organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA as > second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of > organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological > breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward > organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made > how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the > European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European > flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended > to innovation systems. > To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should > remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that > accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive to > or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations > systems. > > Keywords > Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, > European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, > research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets > > > Chris Armbruster > Executive Director, Research Network 1989 > http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ > > Publications and working papers available in Open Access > http://ssrn.com/author=434782 > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Oct 29 07:15:49 2009 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:15:49 +0100 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities In-Reply-To: <454C4EFF24E347449521ABDC1B63025D0367AE9B@MAILSRV1.iue.private> Message-ID: Dear Chris, It seems to me that the elites are still organized nationally. Hitherto, the research councils have been one of their platforms endowing them also with funding which can then be used for exercising power. The move to the European level is mainly inspired by bureaucracies, including the ones of the research councils, insofar as I can see. I am not sure that there is a European level between the national and the international ones in terms of scientific elites. I doubt it; it is more the political system (including the burocrady) which is organized at that level. The ERC hands out very large grants since a few years. It would be interesting to meta-evaluate this system in terms of grantees versus best-rejected. Best wishes, Loet On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Loet, > > One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the European > scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of that very same > elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency that comes with it, e.g. > in the selection of peer reviewers. > > The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now an > important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And yes, there > is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what 'joint > programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New Renaissance Dream' > whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and technological breakthroughs. > Also, in the past decade the Commission has intervened on the question of > university and research organizations and, at least nominally, these > organizations have responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, > EIROfroum) and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or > excellence, i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national? level this is an > issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative. > > The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and the > national governments, but above all the research organizations and > universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not targets, > money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being left behind by > North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms of the articulated > European Research Dream - which is shared by many leading scholars (c.f. > those organising the ERC or Euroscience or those advising the EC) - the > organizational restructuring for more autonomy, more scientific leadership, > more mission-oriented flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should > be the imperative governing their actions. > > Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research > Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs Despite > Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities. (October 27, 2009). > Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > > Best, Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff > Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22 > To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research > organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite > targets, money and policy to foster these activities > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Chris, > > The situation is very interesting. National research councils > traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, > Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be > taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the > 1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques > Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the > precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by > national research councils. > > With the shift of attention to science as central to the > knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly > China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic > reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle > rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of > research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the > EU? > > Best wishes, > > Loet > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris > wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the >> European >> Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear >> from >> colleagues interested in this issue. >> >> Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research >> organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite >> targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). >> >> Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 >> >> Abstract >> The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of >> the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research >> organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and >> technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed >> and >> then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. >> The >> conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the >> European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related >> to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and >> operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern >> 'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the >> mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well >> funded. >> This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on >> targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring >> about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the >> organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA >> as >> second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of >> organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological >> breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward >> organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made >> how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the >> European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European >> flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended >> to innovation systems. >> To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should >> remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that >> accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive >> to >> or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations >> systems. >> >> Keywords >> Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, >> European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, >> research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets >> >> >> Chris Armbruster >> Executive Director, Research Network 1989 >> http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ >> >> Publications and working papers available in Open Access >> http://ssrn.com/author=434782 >> >> > > > > -- > Loet Leydesdorff > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > --------------------------------------- > Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, > Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; From dwojick at HUGHES.NET Thu Oct 29 08:02:57 2009 From: dwojick at HUGHES.NET (David Wojick) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:57 +0000 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Message-ID: Dear Chris, I am skeptical of your claim that "it is known what kind of organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward organizational restructuring." (But I have not seen your paper.) First, I am not aware of any empirical model of breakthroughs that is sufficiently well developed to support such a precise claim. It would require being able to identify and quantify breakthroughs, and I don't think we can do that (yet). How many breakthroughs were there last year? One, ten, ten thousand, a million? I don't think we know, because the concept is still wildly imprecise. Second, following Kuhn, I would argue that producing breakthroughs is not the job of most scientists, so science should not be organized around this goal. That is, each breakthrough depends upon a great deal of prior work, which must first be funded. In fact I think that this purported "breakthrough race" is based on a mistaken concept of how science works. One can't fund just the breakthroughs. Would that we could, but science does not work that way. Still it is a wonderful question, which I too am working on. See for example: http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery Cheers, David David Wojick, Ph.D. Senior consultant for innovation Office of Scientific and Technical Information US Dept. of Energy Oct 29, 2009 06:50:56 AM, SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU wrote: =========================================== One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the European scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of that very same elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency that comes with it, e.g. in the selection of peer reviewers. The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now an important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And yes, there is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what 'joint programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New Renaissance Dream' whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and technological breakthroughs. Also, in the past decade the Commission has intervened on the question of university and research organizations and, at least nominally, these organizations have responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, EIROfroum) and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or excellence, i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national level this is an issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative. The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and the national governments, but above all the research organizations and universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not targets, money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being left behind by North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms of the articulated European Research Dream - which is shared by many leading scholars (c.f. those organising the ERC or Euroscience or those advising the EC) - the organizational restructuring for more autonomy, more scientific leadership, more mission-oriented flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should be the imperative governing their actions. Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs Despite Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities. (October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22 To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Chris, The situation is very interesting. National research councils traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the 1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by national research councils. With the shift of attention to science as central to the knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the EU? Best wishes, Loet On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the European > Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear from > colleagues interested in this issue. > > Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research > organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite > targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). > > Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > > Abstract > The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of > the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research > organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and > technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed and > then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. The > conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the > European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related > to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and > operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern > 'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the > mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well > funded. > This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on > targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring > about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the > organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA as > second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of > organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological > breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward > organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made > how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the > European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European > flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended > to innovation systems. > To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should > remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that > accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive to > or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations > systems. > > Keywords > Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, > European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, > research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets > > > Chris Armbruster > Executive Director, Research Network 1989 > http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ > > Publications and working papers available in Open Access > http://ssrn.com/author=434782 > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; From Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU Thu Oct 29 08:46:09 2009 From: Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU (Armbruster, Chris) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:46:09 +0100 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Message-ID: Dear David, no claim is made that we can causally explain or quantify breakthroughs. Yet, it is possible to describe with a good degree of accuracy what organizations look like that have been - repeatedly! - the site of a recognized breakthrough. Also, we can describe what places look like that impede or discourage such efforts. Rather than thinking about this in terms of revolutions and normal science, what about a very pragmatic approach that revolves, for example, around advising junior scientists where to go? My bet would be that in 'fostering organisations' the job satisfaction of researchers will be much higher than in the miserable places (e.g. compare Rockefeller University to any underfunded university in Europe). Why? Even though we cannot quantify breakthroughs very well and most researchers do not receive the Nobel Prize, we all do have a pretty clear idea about what a conducive working environment is in which you can meaningfully contribute to the progress of science... One way to go about building more and better knowledge is to describe and analyse the sites at which recognized breakthroughs occur, although this will always have to be historical. Another is to track the experience of those recently awarded flagship grants, and contribute towards removing the organizational obstacles... This is not rocket science, but possibly rather close to what business and management schools do and what is known as organizational restructuring. Yet, I think it would be more than worthwhile. Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 13:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Chris, I am skeptical of your claim that "it is known what kind of organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward organizational restructuring." (But I have not seen your paper.) First, I am not aware of any empirical model of breakthroughs that is sufficiently well developed to support such a precise claim. It would require being able to identify and quantify breakthroughs, and I don't think we can do that (yet). How many breakthroughs were there last year? One, ten, ten thousand, a million? I don't think we know, because the concept is still wildly imprecise. Second, following Kuhn, I would argue that producing breakthroughs is not the job of most scientists, so science should not be organized around this goal. That is, each breakthrough depends upon a great deal of prior work, which must first be funded. In fact I think that this purported "breakthrough race" is based on a mistaken concept of how science works. One can't fund just the breakthroughs. Would that we could, but science does not work that way. Still it is a wonderful question, which I too am working on. See for example: http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery Cheers, David David Wojick, Ph.D. Senior consultant for innovation Office of Scientific and Technical Information US Dept. of Energy Oct 29, 2009 06:50:56 AM, SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU wrote: =========================================== [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Loet, One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the European scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of that very same elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency that comes with it, e.g. in the selection of peer reviewers. The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now an important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And yes, there is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what 'joint programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New Renaissance Dream' whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and technological breakthroughs. Also, in the past decade the Commission has intervened on the question of university and research organizations and, at least nominally, these organizations have responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, EIROfroum) and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or excellence, i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national level this is an issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative. The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and the national governments, but above all the research organizations and universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not targets, money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being left behind by North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms of the articulated European Research Dream - which is shared by many leading scholars (c.f. those organising the ERC or Euroscience or those advising the EC) - the organizational restructuring for more autonomy, more scientific leadership, more mission-oriented flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should be the imperative governing their actions. Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs Despite Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities. (October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22 To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Chris, The situation is very interesting. National research councils traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the 1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by national research councils. With the shift of attention to science as central to the knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the EU? Best wishes, Loet On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the European > Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear from > colleagues interested in this issue. > > Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research > organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite > targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). > > Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > > Abstract > The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of > the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research > organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and > technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed and > then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. The > conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the > European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related > to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and > operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern > 'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the > mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well > funded. > This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on > targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring > about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the > organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA as > second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of > organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological > breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward > organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made > how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the > European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European > flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended > to innovation systems. > To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should > remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that > accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive to > or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations > systems. > > Keywords > Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, > European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, > research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets > > > Chris Armbruster > Executive Director, Research Network 1989 > http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ > > Publications and working papers available in Open Access > http://ssrn.com/author=434782 > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katy at INDIANA.EDU Thu Oct 29 09:21:32 2009 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:21:32 -0400 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities In-Reply-To: <35c78d460910290022v3de391a1l76d76c296179e953@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at HUGHES.NET Thu Oct 29 11:23:56 2009 From: dwojick at HUGHES.NET (David E. Wojick) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:23:56 -0500 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities In-Reply-To: <454C4EFF24E347449521ABDC1B63025D0367AEA0@MAILSRV1.iue.private> Message-ID: Dear Chris, Bear in mind that this list is populated by people who study science scientifically. You appear to be making strong empirical claims based on anecdotal evidence. I seriously doubt that there is a strong statistical correlation between breakthroughs and forms of organization, but I would be willing to look at the scientific studies, if there are any. The same is true for "conducive working environments," whatever that means. In the case you describe the determining factor is probably money, not the form of organization. The best schools bid for the best people and produce the best work (but not necessarily breakthroughs). Organization is not a factor. My best, David Dear David, no claim is made that we can causally explain or quantify breakthroughs. Yet, it is possible to describe with a good degree of accuracy what organizations look like that have been - repeatedly! - the site of a recognized breakthrough. Also, we can describe what places look like that impede or discourage such efforts. Rather than thinking about this in terms of revolutions and normal science, what about a very pragmatic approach that revolves, for example, around advising junior scientists where to go? My bet would be that in 'fostering organisations' the job satisfaction of researchers will be much higher than in the miserable places (e.g. compare Rockefeller University to any underfunded university in Europe). Why? Even though we cannot quantify breakthroughs very well and most researchers do not receive the Nobel Prize, we all do have a pretty clear idea about what a conducive working environment is in which you can meaningfully contribute to the progress of science... One way to go about building more and better knowledge is to describe and analyse the sites at which recognized breakthroughs occur, although this will always have to be historical. Another is to track the experience of those recently awarded flagship grants, and contribute towards removing the organizational obstacles... This is not rocket science, but possibly rather close to what business and management schools do and what is known as organizational restructuring. Yet, I think it would be more than worthwhile. Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 13:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Chris, I am skeptical of your claim that "it is known what kind of organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward organizational restructuring." (But I have not seen your paper.) First, I am not aware of any empirical model of breakthroughs that is sufficiently well developed to support such a precise claim. It would require being able to identify and quantify breakthroughs, and I don't think we can do that (yet). How many breakthroughs were there last year? One, ten, ten thousand, a million? I don't think we know, because the concept is still wildly imprecise. Second, following Kuhn, I would argue that producing breakthroughs is not the job of most scientists, so science should not be organized around this goal. That is, each breakthrough depends upon a great deal of prior work, which must first be funded. In fact I think that this purported "breakthrough race" is based on a mistaken concept of how science works. One can't fund just the breakthroughs. Would that we could, but science does not work that way. Still it is a wonderful question, which I too am working on. See for example: http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery Cheers, David David Wojick, Ph.D. Senior consultant for innovation Office of Scientific and Technical Information US Dept. of Energy Oct 29, 2009 06:50:56 AM, SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU wrote: =========================================== [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Loet, One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the European scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of that very same elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency that comes with it, e.g. in the selection of peer reviewers. The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now an important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And yes, there is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what 'joint programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New Renaissance Dream' whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and technological breakthroughs. Also, in the past decade the Commission has intervened on the question of university and research organizations and, at least nominally, these organizations have responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, EIROfroum) and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or excellence, i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national level this is an issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative. The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and the national governments, but above all the research organizations and universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not targets, money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being left behind by North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms of the articulated European Research Dream - which is shared by many leading scholars (c.f. those organising the ERC or Euroscience or those advising the EC) - the organizational restructuring for more autonomy, more scientific leadership, more mission-oriented flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should be the imperative governing their actions. Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs Despite Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities. (October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22 To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Chris, The situation is very interesting. National research councils traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the 1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by national research councils. With the shift of attention to science as central to the knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the EU? Best wishes, Loet On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the European > Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear from > colleagues interested in this issue. > > Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research > organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite > targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). > > Available at SSRN: >http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > > Abstract > The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of > the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research > organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and > technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed and > then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. The > conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the > European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related > to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and > operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern > 'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the > mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well > funded. > This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on > targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring > about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the > organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA as > second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of > organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological > breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward > organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made > how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the > European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European > flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended > to innovation systems. > To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should > remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that > accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive to > or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations > systems. > > Keywords > Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, > European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, > research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets > > > Chris Armbruster > Executive Director, Research Network 1989 > >http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ > > Publications and working papers available in Open Access > http://ssrn.com/author=434782 > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geisler at STUART.IIT.EDU Thu Oct 29 10:36:49 2009 From: geisler at STUART.IIT.EDU (Eliezer Geisler) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:36:49 -0500 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: I find the discussion very insightful. I join David in a skeptical approach to the advances we made in organizational structuring for breakthrough or revolutionary innovations in S&T. In my view, we are mixing several inter-related topics. One is the metrics of technological innovations, especially revolutionary. For almost three decades many of us have been researching this challenging problem with some, but not conclusive results.Second, we are also looking at the whole issue of inter-disciplinary research, with its human, organizational, political, and cultural barriers. These also extend to funding agencies which are, to a large extent, focused on the disciplinary silos. By the way, this also applies to business schools where we joined the other sciences in creating such disciplinary retreats. Third, we are mixing another issue of the human aspects of motivation and rewards for scientists in all disciplines, in Academia as well as government prestigious institutes. No matter how we reorganize, unless inter-disciplinary work and acceptance of NIH (Not Invented Here)translate into rewards, promotion and recognition, scientists will continue to immerse themselves in disciplinary problems, to the verification of Kuhn and Lakatos. Fourth, there is the topic of commercialization of innovations. Ideas and concepts are just the beginning, and the breakthrough aspects many times involve the next step of bringing them to market. In this vein I'd like to add to David's example in the OSTI blog (forest management work on Monte Carlo, that it was the DOE who had a major role in funding the breakthrough work on the Genome. Best regards, Elie _______________________________ Elie Geisler Distinguished Professor Director, Center for the Management of Medical Technology Stuart School of Business Illinois Institute of Technology 565 W. Adams Street Chicago, IL 60661 Tel:(312) 906-6532 ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: David Wojick Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:57 +0000 >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Chris, > >I am skeptical of your claim that "it is known what kind of organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward organizational restructuring." (But I have not seen your paper.) > >First, I am not aware of any empirical model of breakthroughs that is sufficiently well developed to support such a precise claim. It would require being able to identify and quantify breakthroughs, and I don't think we can do that (yet). How many breakthroughs were there last year? One, ten, ten thousand, a million? I don't think we know, because the concept is still wildly imprecise. > >Second, following Kuhn, I would argue that producing breakthroughs is not the job of most scientists, so science should not be organized around this goal. That is, each breakthrough depends upon a great deal of prior work, which must first be funded. In fact I think that this purported "breakthrough race" is based on a mistaken concept of how science works. One can't fund just the breakthroughs. Would that we could, but science does not work that way. > >Still it is a wonderful question, which I too am working on. See for example: >http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery > >Cheers, >David > >David Wojick, Ph.D. >Senior consultant for innovation >Office of Scientific and Technical Information >US Dept. of Energy > >Oct 29, 2009 06:50:56 AM, SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU wrote: > >=========================================== > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.htmlRE: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities >Dear Loet, > >One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the European scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of that very same elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency that comes with it, e.g. in the selection of peer reviewers. > >The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now an important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And yes, there is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what 'joint programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New Renaissance Dream' whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and technological breakthroughs. Also, in the past decade the Commission has intervened on the question of university and research organizations and, at least nominally, these organizations have responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, EIROfroum) and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or excellence, i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national level this is an issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative. > >The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and the national governments, but above all the research organizations and universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not targets, money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being left behind by North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms of the articulated European Research Dream - which is shared by many leading scholars (c.f. those organising the ERC or Euroscience or those advising the EC) - the organizational restructuring for more autonomy, more scientific leadership, more mission-oriented flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should be the imperative governing their actions. > >Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs Despite Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities. (October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > >Best, Chris > >-----Original Message----- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff >Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22 >To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Chris, > >The situation is very interesting. National research councils >traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, >Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be >taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the >1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques >Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the >precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by >national research councils. > >With the shift of attention to science as central to the >knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly >China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic >reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle >rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of >research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the >EU? > >Best wishes, > >Loet > >On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris > wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the European >> Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear from >> colleagues interested in this issue. >> >> Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research >> organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite >> targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). >> >> Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 >> >> Abstract >> The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of >> the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research >> organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and >> technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed and >> then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. The >> conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the >> European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related >> to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and >> operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern >> 'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the >> mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well >> funded. >> This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on >> targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring >> about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the >> organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA as >> second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of >> organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological >> breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward >> organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made >> how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the >> European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European >> flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended >> to innovation systems. >> To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should >> remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that >> accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive to >> or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations >> systems. >> >> Keywords >> Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, >> European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, >> research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets >> >> >> Chris Armbruster >> Executive Director, Research Network 1989 >> http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ >> >> Publications and working papers available in Open Access >> http://ssrn.com/author=434782 >> >> > > > >-- >Loet Leydesdorff >Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) >Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam >Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 >loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >--------------------------------------- >Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, >Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; > From Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU Thu Oct 29 10:43:47 2009 From: Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU (Armbruster, Chris) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:43:47 +0100 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Message-ID: Dear David, It would be nice if you looked at the literature. Case studies and interviews may not be the kind of methods you favour, but there are notable scholars (not me) who have looked at decades of evidence, conducted detailed case studies of organizations and interviewed hundreds of scientists that have achieved recognized breakthroughs. Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David E. Wojick Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 16:23 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Chris, Bear in mind that this list is populated by people who study science scientifically. You appear to be making strong empirical claims based on anecdotal evidence. I seriously doubt that there is a strong statistical correlation between breakthroughs and forms of organization, but I would be willing to look at the scientific studies, if there are any. The same is true for "conducive working environments," whatever that means. In the case you describe the determining factor is probably money, not the form of organization. The best schools bid for the best people and produce the best work (but not necessarily breakthroughs). Organization is not a factor. My best, David Dear David, no claim is made that we can causally explain or quantify breakthroughs. Yet, it is possible to describe with a good degree of accuracy what organizations look like that have been - repeatedly! - the site of a recognized breakthrough. Also, we can describe what places look like that impede or discourage such efforts. Rather than thinking about this in terms of revolutions and normal science, what about a very pragmatic approach that revolves, for example, around advising junior scientists where to go? My bet would be that in 'fostering organisations' the job satisfaction of researchers will be much higher than in the miserable places (e.g. compare Rockefeller University to any underfunded university in Europe). Why? Even though we cannot quantify breakthroughs very well and most researchers do not receive the Nobel Prize, we all do have a pretty clear idea about what a conducive working environment is in which you can meaningfully contribute to the progress of science... One way to go about building more and better knowledge is to describe and analyse the sites at which recognized breakthroughs occur, although this will always have to be historical. Another is to track the experience of those recently awarded flagship grants, and contribute towards removing the organizational obstacles... This is not rocket science, but possibly rather close to what business and management schools do and what is known as organizational restructuring. Yet, I think it would be more than worthwhile. Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 13:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities y/sigmetrics.html Dear Chris, I am skeptical of your claim that "it is known what kind of organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward organizational restructuring." (But I have not seen your paper.) First, I am not aware of any empirical model of breakthroughs that is sufficiently well developed to support such a precise claim. It would require being able to identify and quantify breakthroughs, and I don't think we can do that (yet). How many breakthroughs were there last year? One, ten, ten thousand, a million? I don't think we know, because the concept is still wildly imprecise. Second, following Kuhn, I would argue that producing breakthroughs is not the job of most scientists, so science should not be organized around this goal. That is, each breakthrough depends upon a great deal of prior work, which must first be funded. In fact I think that this purported "breakthrough race" is based on a mistaken concept of how science works. One can't fund just the breakthroughs. Would that we could, but science does not work that way. Still it is a wonderful question, which I too am working on. See for example: http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery Cheers, David David Wojick, Ph.D. Senior consultant for innovation Office of Scientific and Technical Information US Dept. of Energy Oct 29, 2009 06:50:56 AM, SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU wrote: =========================================== [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Dear Loet, One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the European scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of that very same elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency that comes with it, e.g. in the selection of peer reviewers. The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now an important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And yes, there is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what 'joint programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New Renaissance Dream' whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and technological breakthroughs. Also, in the past decade the Commission has intervened on the question of university and research organizations and, at least nominally, these organizations have responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, EIROfroum) and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or excellence, i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national level this is an issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative. The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and the national governments, but above all the research organizations and universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not targets, money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being left behind by North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms of the articulated European Research Dream - which is shared by many leading scholars (c.f. those organising the ERC or Euroscience or those advising the EC) - the organizational restructuring for more autonomy, more scientific leadership, more mission-oriented flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should be the imperative governing their actions. Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs Despite Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities. (October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 Best, Chris -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22 To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities y/sigmetrics.html Dear Chris, The situation is very interesting. National research councils traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the 1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by national research councils. With the shift of attention to science as central to the knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the EU? Best wishes, Loet On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the European > Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear from > colleagues interested in this issue. > > Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research > organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite > targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). > > Available at SSRN: >http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > > Abstract > The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of > the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research > organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and > technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first overwhelmed and > then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the organization. The > conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the > European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related > to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and > operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern > 'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the > mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well > funded. > This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on > targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring > about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the > organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of ERA as > second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of > organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological > breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward > organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made > how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the > European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European > flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended > to innovation systems. > To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should > remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that > accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is conducive to > or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations > systems. > > Keywords > Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, > European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, > research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets > > > Chris Armbruster > Executive Director, Research Network 1989 > >http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ > > Publications and working papers available in Open Access > http://ssrn.com/author=434782 > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at HUGHES.NET Thu Oct 29 18:09:31 2009 From: dwojick at HUGHES.NET (David Wojick) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:09:31 -0400 Subject: The European Research Conundrum: when research organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities Message-ID: Dear Chris, I know the literature well enough to know that it does not support your claim. You are proposing a major reorganization of the institutions of science. Yours is a cause, not a finding. I have no doubt that you can find case studies that support your cause, but there are many that do not. More importantly, compiling friendly cases is not science. You need to pick a population of institutions, categorize them by organizational form, measure their breakthrough output, then turn the crank to see if your thesis holds. Otherwise you are simply cherry picking data to support your cause. Best of luck, David At 10:43 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear David, > >It would be nice if you looked at the literature. Case studies and >interviews may not be the kind of methods you favour, but there are >notable scholars (not me) who have looked at decades of evidence, >conducted detailed case studies of organizations and interviewed hundreds >of scientists that have achieved recognized breakthroughs. > >Best, Chris > >-----Original Message----- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David E. Wojick >Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 16:23 >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research >organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite >targets, money and policy to foster these activities > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Chris, > >Bear in mind that this list is populated by people who study science >scientifically. You appear to be making strong empirical claims based >on anecdotal evidence. I seriously doubt that there is a strong >statistical correlation between breakthroughs and forms of >organization, but I would be willing to look at the scientific >studies, if there are any. The same is true for "conducive working >environments," whatever that means. In the case you describe the >determining factor is probably money, not the form of organization. >The best schools bid for the best people and produce the best work >(but not necessarily breakthroughs). Organization is not a factor. > >My best, >David > > >Dear David, > >no claim is made that we can causally explain or quantify >breakthroughs. Yet, it is possible to describe with a good degree of >accuracy what organizations look like that have been - repeatedly! - >the site of a recognized breakthrough. Also, we can describe what >places look like that impede or discourage such efforts. > >Rather than thinking about this in terms of revolutions and normal >science, what about a very pragmatic approach that revolves, for >example, around advising junior scientists where to go? My bet would >be that in 'fostering organisations' the job satisfaction of >researchers will be much higher than in the miserable places (e.g. >compare Rockefeller University to any underfunded university in >Europe). Why? Even though we cannot quantify breakthroughs very well >and most researchers do not receive the Nobel Prize, we all do have a >pretty clear idea about what a conducive working environment is in >which you can meaningfully contribute to the progress of science... > >One way to go about building more and better knowledge is to describe >and analyse the sites at which recognized breakthroughs occur, >although this will always have to be historical. Another is to track >the experience of those recently awarded flagship grants, and >contribute towards removing the organizational obstacles... This is >not rocket science, but possibly rather close to what business and >management schools do and what is known as organizational >restructuring. Yet, I think it would be more than worthwhile. > >Best, Chris > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick >Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 13:02 >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when >research organizations impede scientific and technological >breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these >activities > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): ><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Chris, > >I am skeptical of your claim that "it is known what kind of >organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological >breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive >forward organizational restructuring." (But I have not seen your >paper.) > >First, I am not aware of any empirical model of breakthroughs that is >sufficiently well developed to support such a precise claim. It would >require being able to identify and quantify breakthroughs, and I >don't think we can do that (yet). How many breakthroughs were there >last year? One, ten, ten thousand, a million? I don't think we know, >because the concept is still wildly imprecise. > >Second, following Kuhn, I would argue that producing breakthroughs is >not the job of most scientists, so science should not be organized >around this goal. That is, each breakthrough depends upon a great >deal of prior work, which must first be funded. In fact I think that >this purported "breakthrough race" is based on a mistaken concept of >how science works. One can't fund just the breakthroughs. Would that >we could, but science does not work that way. > >Still it is a wonderful question, which I too am working on. See for example: ><http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery>http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/leaping_concepts_and_global_discovery > >Cheers, >David > >David Wojick, Ph.D. >Senior consultant for innovation >Office of Scientific and Technical Information >US Dept. of Energy > >Oct 29, 2009 06:50:56 AM, SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU wrote: > >=========================================== > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example >unsubscribe):http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.htmlRE: >[SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when research >organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs >despite targets, money and policy to foster these activities >Dear Loet, > >One could indeed infer that the ERC organizes the power of the >European scientific elite - only that the ERC review (by members of >that very same elite) heavily criticized the lack of transparency >that comes with it, e.g. in the selection of peer reviewers. > >The ERC is also a signal that, at the European level, research is now >an important issue (even as innovation remains the main focus). And >yes, there is a struggle over how large the FP8 budget will be, what >'joint programming' etc. means. Yet, the ERC is part of 'The New >Renaissance Dream' whereby Europe seeks to foster scientific and >technological breakthroughs. Also, in the past decade the Commission >has intervened on the question of university and research >organizations and, at least nominally, these organizations have >responded by organizing themselves (e.g. EUA, EUROHORCS, EIROfroum) >and by espousing a call for restructuring in pursuit or excellence, >i.e. new breakthroughs. Also, at the national level this is an >issue, e.g. German Excellence Initiative. > >The paper addresses these broad issues and suggests that Europe and >the national governments, but above all the research organizations >and universities must concentrate on organization restructuring (not >targets, money & policy). Minimally they must do this to avoid being >left behind by North America, East Asia and India. But also in terms >of the articulated European Research Dream - which is shared by many >leading scholars (c.f. those organising the ERC or Euroscience or >those advising the EC) - the organizational restructuring for more >autonomy, more scientific leadership, more mission-oriented >flexibility, more intellectual diversity etc. should be the >imperative governing their actions. > >Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research >Organizations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs >Despite Targets, Money and Policy to Foster these Activities. >(October 27, 2009). Available at SSRN: ><http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534>http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > >Best, Chris > >-----Original Message----- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff >Sent: Thu 10/29/2009 08:22 >To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The European Research Conundrum: when >research organizations impede scientific and technological >breakthroughs despite targets, money and policy to foster these >activities > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): ><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Chris, > >The situation is very interesting. National research councils >traditionally organize the power of the scientific elite (Mills, >Mulkay) and given the subsidiarity principle this power cannot be >taken away easily by a European organization. The EU therefore in the >1980s decided to focus not on science, but on innovation (Jaques >Delors). The Framework Programmes were defined in terms of the >precompetitive technosciences. This terrain was yet unoccupied by >national research councils. > >With the shift of attention to science as central to the >knowledge-base of an economy (e.g., the US program SciSIP, but mainly >China), this arrangement may have to be revised (for economic >reasons). Thus, we are witnessing in my opinion a power struggle >rather than a conundrum. At issue is who controls the allocation of >research funds and to which extend: national research councils or the >EU? > >Best wishes, > >Loet > >On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Armbruster, Chris > wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > ><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitn > ey/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Please find the abstract and the link to a new working paper on the > European > > Research Conundrum. Comments are welcome. I would be interested to > hear from > > colleagues interested in this issue. > > > > Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: when research > > organizations impede scientific and technological breakthroughs despite > > targets, money and policy to foster these activities. (October 27, 2009). > > > > Available at SSRN: > ><http://ssrn.com/abstract=1494534>http: > //ssrn.com/abstract=1494534 > > > > Abstract > > The European Research Conundrum may be described thus: In the interest of > > the European Research Dream, the structure and culture of the research > > organization should be adapted to the mission of achieving scientific and > > technological breakthroughs but, alas, this mission is first > overwhelmed and > > then deformed by the existing structure and culture of the > organization. The > > conundrum has been highlighted publicly by the high-level review of the > > European Research Council (ERC), which "found fundamental problems related > > to rules and practices regarding the governance, administration and > > operations of the ERC that are not adapted to the nature of modern > > 'frontier' science management." The organization threatens to defeat the > > mission, even though the ERC is new, corresponds to targets, and is well > > funded. > > This paper advances three arguments. Firstly, the prevalent focus on > > targets, money and policy is criticized because it does little to bring > > about the required organizational restructuring while allowing the > > organization to overwhelm the mission, thus threatening a lock-in of > ERA as > > second rate. Secondly, it is shown that it is known what kind of > > organizational design is conducive to scientific and technological > > breakthroughs and that this knowledge could be utilized to drive forward > > organizational restructuring. Thirdly, some practical suggestions are made > > how to gather empirical evidence about barriers and challenges in the > > European Research Area by tracking the experience of grantees of European > > flagship programmes in a multiple case-study design, which may be extended > > to innovation systems. > > To also speak to those who think that targets, money and policy should > > remain the focus, the research may be designed in a fashion that > > accommodates alternative and competing hypotheses as to what is > conducive to > > or impedes scientific and technological breakthroughs and innovations > > systems. > > > > Keywords > > Scientific breakthroughs, technological inventions, innovation systems, > > European Research Area, European Research Council, scientific excellence, > > research university, research funding, research policy, R&D targets > > > > > > Chris Armbruster > > Executive Director, Research Network 1989 > > > ><http://www.cee-socialscience.net > /1989/>http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/ > > > > Publications and working papers available in Open Access > > > <http://ssrn.com/author=434782>http://ssrn.com/author=434782 > > > > > > > >-- >Loet Leydesdorff >Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) >Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam >Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 >loet at leydesdorff.net ; ><http://www.leydesdorff.net/>http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >--------------------------------------- >Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, >Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katy at INDIANA.EDU Sat Oct 31 12:10:35 2009 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:10:35 -0400 Subject: Call for Maps: Places & Spaces: Mapping Science Exhibit, 6th Iteration o n =?windows-1252?Q?=93Science_Maps_for_Scholars=94?= (2010) In-Reply-To: <4915BFF8.4090200@indiana.edu> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: