Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In this paper, we examine how a research institution’s social structure and the presence of academic opinion leaders shaped the early adoption of a scientific innovation. Our case considers the early engagement of mathematical economists at the Cowles Commission with John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern’s Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. We argue that scholars with administrative leadership functions who were not only scientifically but also organizationally central—in our case Jacob Marschak, the director of research at Cowles—played a crucial role in promoting the early adoption of the Theory of Games. We support our argument with a scientometric analysis of all acknowledgments made in 488 papers published from 1944 to 1955 in the two main research paper series at the Cowles Commission. We apply blockmodeling techniques to the acknowledgments network to reconstruct the formal and informal social structure at Cowles at the time. Our case study emphasizes the importance of formal and informal social structures and the research agendas of academic opinion leaders to explain the early engagement with and adoption of innovative scientific ideas. Studies of the early adoption of scientific theories can benefit from complementary perspectives on the role of academic opinion leaders and scientists in explaining theory adoption. PubDate: 2023-03-18
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In this article we study and characterize the phenomenon of the hyperprolific authors, who are the most productive researchers according to a given repository in a specific period of time. Particularly, we are interested in investigating and characterizing a subset of such hyperprolific authors who present a sudden growth in the number of published articles and coauthors, as well as concentrate their publications in a few specific journals, what can be seen as an anomalous behavior. Using data collected from the DBLP repository and covering the last 10 years, we propose a set of discriminative dimensions (features) aimed at characterizing the behavior of hyperprolific authors, ultimately helping to identify anomalous ones. Moreover, using a strategy based on ranking aggregation to identify the most prominent anomalous authors, we demonstrate that the best dimensions to characterize such anomalous behaviors may vary significantly among authors, but it is possible to identify a clear subset of them who present such behavior. Our results show that the top-ranked (most anomalous) authors manifest a distinct behavior from the middle-ranked ones. Indeed, each one of the five most anomalous authors published more than 48 journal articles in 2021 while collaborating with more than 1,000 coauthors in their careers. Specifically, one of such authors published more than 140 articles in just a single journal. PubDate: 2023-03-15
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In this study, we present an objective, replicable methodology to identify trendy journals in any consolidated discipline. Trendy journals are those most read by authors who are currently publishing within the scope of the discipline. Trendy journal lists differ from consolidated lists of top core journals; the latter are very stable over time, mainly reflecting reputational factors, whereas the former reveal current influences not yet captured by studies based on bibliometric indicators or expert surveys. We apply our methodology to identify trendy journals among 167 titles indexed in the Web of Science category of the Information Science & Library Science (LIS) research area. Our list of trendy journals represents the most influential journals nowadays in the LIS discipline, challenging to some extent the core LIS journal list and journal category lists ordered by citations (e.g., by the Journal Impact Factor). Our results show that Scientometrics is the journal that bears the most influence on current production when not corrected for journal size and that Quantitative Science Studies—a small, relatively new journal not yet assigned a Journal Impact Factor nor present on any list of core LIS journals—is the journal that has shown the most significant recent influence when controlling for size. PubDate: 2023-03-13
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” is essential to reduce gender disparity and improve the status of women. But it remains a challenge to narrow gender differences and improve gender equality in academic research. In this paper, we propose that the impact of articles is lower and writing style of articles is less positive when the article’s first author is female relative to male first authors, and writing style mediates this relationship. Focusing on the positive writing style, we attempt to contribute and explain the research on gender differences in research performance. We use BERT-based textual sentiment analysis to analyse 87 years of 9820 articles published in the top four marketing journals and prove our hypotheses. We also consider a set of control variables and conduct a set of robustness checks to ensure the robustness of our findings. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of our findings for researchers. PubDate: 2023-03-08
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We use data on research collaboration among 5,230 scholars in the University of São Paulo between 2000 and 2019 to understand how a network with high academic endogamy is structured, to identify if academic collaboration is more commonly found among those who share endogamy status, and to analyze if the likelihood of tie formation is distinct among inbred and non-inbred scholars. Results show growth of collaborations over time. However, ties between scholars are more likely to occur when endogamy status is shared by both inbred and non-inbred ones. Furthermore, such homophily effect seems to gradually be more influential on non-inbred scholars, suggesting this institution could be missing out on opportunities of exploring non-redundant information from within its own faculty members. PubDate: 2023-03-07
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We analyse the relationship between downloads of electronic journals included in four big deal bundles subscribed to by public university libraries affiliated to two library consortia in Spain (Castile and León and Galicia) and citations of the same journals by researchers at these universities. Download data on the big deals analysed (Emerald, ScienceDirect, Springer and Wiley) were obtained from COUNTER Journal Reports 1, and citation data were obtained from the bibliographic references given in articles indexed in Scopus between 2010 and 2017. The results show that only a low percentage of the subscribed journals was used in the scientific output of the universities’ researchers, with values ranging from 15 to 50%, and that there was a strong correlation between the universities’ volume of scientific production and the percentage of cited journals. We also found a strong correlation between downloads and citations, which was higher in the case of universities with a higher scientific output. PubDate: 2023-03-07
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract The collapse of socialist Eastern Europe in 1989 deprived Cuba’s science system of its most important academic peers. To overcome this obstacle and increase its scientific productivity, Cuba drove scientific collaboration with countries in Europe and Latin America. This study explores the role of Cuban scientific collaboration with the U.S. in the absence of diplomatic relations between those countries. The results suggest that Mexico acts as a bridge for increasing scientific collaboration between Cuba and the U.S.—measured as the number of coauthored papers published in WoS and Scopus. When the number of papers co-authored by Cuban academics with their Mexican peers doubled, the number of articles coauthored by Cuban and U.S. scientists in Scopus grew 9.31 times \(2^{3.22}\) and 8.11 times \(2^{3.08}\) . in WoS. The findings support the hypothesis that scientific collaboration favors an increase in the productivity and scientific visibility of countries. Furthermore, the results suggest that scientific collaboration helps to lay bridges between science systems in the absence of diplomatic relations and even in the presence of political and economic hostility between them. Strengthening international scientific collaboration makes it possible for the science systems of developing countries to overcome limitations on resources and carry out cutting-edge research, and also to incorporate their scientists in mainstream research in the areas that promote their technological-scientific development. PubDate: 2023-03-07
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract International research collaboration (IRC) has been relevant for the development of national scientific systems. In Africa, given the limited resources devoted to research and development (R&D) activities and the crucial role that scientific knowledge generated through research activities can have in socioeconomic development, IRC may be an opportunity to strengthen scientific capabilities. While geographical, economic, political/governance, cultural, intellectual and excellence distance hampers IRC in other regions, we argue that economic and excellence distances actuate differently in Africa. We explored the impact of the variables above in addition to the information and communication technologies (ICTs), and social distances on the IRC of these countries. Using panel data for 54 African economies, our results show that economic distance fosters IRC while governance and excellence distances are non-significant. Past collaborations (one out of two proxies for social distance) and speaking the same language have the highest effect on IRC, and ICTs distance the lowest. The results have implications for science policy in Africa. For instance, we argue that science policies need to be adapted to each environment as the scientific landscape in each country is unique. PubDate: 2023-03-07
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Science has become more collaborative over the past years, as evidenced by the growing number of authors per publication and the emergence of interdisciplinary research endeavors involving specialists from different fields. In this context, it is not trivial to quantify the individual impact of researchers. To address this issue, we evaluate the effect of the most productive collaboration tie (as measured by the number of co-authored papers) on the productivity and visibility metrics of established researchers. We analyzed the impact on the researcher’s metrics, such as the number of publications, citations, and h-index, when their co-authored works with their most productive collaborator were excluded from the analysis. A comprehensive analysis conducted utilizing over 243 million papers revealed different patterns of prolific collaborator influence across the major fields of knowledge. In formal and applied sciences, the impact of prolific collaborators on the visibility metrics of authors is substantial, even among those who are highly cited. These results have significant implications for stakeholders who are seeking to understand collaboration patterns and to develop measures of success that consider collaboration ties. PubDate: 2023-03-07
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract News outlets publicize scientific research findings that have not been peer reviewed yet, and they often do it with active contribution by the authors of the unpublished manuscripts. While researchers are aware of the importance of the peer review process and what it means to discuss findings before manuscripts are accepted for publication, the general public is not. It is imperative to ensure that researchers provide reliable scientific knowledge to each other and to the public, as well as to preserve reliance on the scientific process and peer review. For these reasons, researchers should be more cautious in communicating unpublished work to the public and more accurate about the status of the presented scientific information. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract With the intention to evaluate a current h(fa)-index which considered the relative contribution of each author, Sebo P and colleagues selected senior hospital physicians from six college hospitals in Switzerland between 1 and 14 March 2020. Using Web of Science, the authors assessed the h(fa)-index of all physicians with acquired non-zero h-index. They applied Cohen’s kappa statistic to calculate the inter-rater agreement between the h-index and the h(fa)-index. We argue that the agreement between the results of the two metrics is disputed by Cohen’s kappa statistic. Therefore, we recommend that an additional appropriate statistical approach, the weighted Cohen’s kappa statistic, should be used in this study. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract While interest in mapping the patterns of publication and research in post-Soviet countries has been growing steadily, there is a gap in knowledge about how gender is featured in post-Soviet research and publications. Using a descriptive bibliometric approach and metadata extracted from 2822 publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection database for 1993–2021, this study seeks to understand the evolution of gender research in post-Soviet countries. The analysis revealed a notable increase in gender research and publications since the breakup of the Soviet Union, particularly between 2017 and 2021; however, the contribution of the post-Soviet countries to international research on gender remains insignificant. Russia, Estonia and Ukraine are at the forefront of gender research among post-Soviet states, while Caucasus and Central Asian countries, except Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, contribute to the lower degree. Although research collaboration among post-Soviet researchers is increasing, researchers tend to mainly collaborate internally with authors from the same countries and institutions, and very few authors collaborate across post-Soviet states or internationally. The topics of publications in post-Soviet gender research incorporate different subjects, with most articles published within psychology and behavioral sciences, while gender research in sociological and political economy disciplines is still evolving. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract A well-designed method for evaluating scientists is vital for the scientific community. It can be used to rank scientists in various practical tasks, such as hiring, funding application and promotion. However, a large number of evaluation methods are designed based on citation counts which can merely evaluate scientists’ scientific impact but can not evaluate their innovation ability which actually is a crucial characteristic for scientists. In addition, when evaluating scientists, it has become increasingly common to only focus on their representative works rather than all their papers. Accordingly, we here propose a hybrid method by combining scientific impact with innovation under representative works framework to evaluate scientists. Our results are validated on the American Physical Society journals dataset and the prestigious laureates datasets. The results suggest that the correlation between citation and disruption is weak, which enables us to incorporate them. In addition, the analysis shows that using representative works framework to evaluate scientists is advantageous and our hybrid method can effectively identify the Nobel Prize laureates and several other prestigious prizes laureates with higher precision and better mean ranking. The evaluation performance of the hybrid method is shown to be the best compared with the mainstream methods. This study provides policy makers an effective way to evaluate scientists from more comprehensive dimensions. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract The Microeconomic Theory by (Mas-Colell et al., Microeconomic Theory, Oxford University Press, 1995) has become the standard microeconomics textbook in economics PhD programs shortly after its publication. Despite 25 years having passed since the first and only edition, the textbook is still used predominantly in these programs. In this paper, we investigate the citation performance of the references in the textbook after 1995. We selected a comparison group of publications that have similar citation performance as the references in the textbook before 1995. We find that the references in the textbook have performed better than the comparison group of publications after 1995. Therefore, we conclude that one of the reasons for the success of the textbook might the careful choice of its references. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract To provide information for targeted support of female scientists, the objective of this study was to evaluate how female authors are represented in journals of five medical disciplines with varying rates of female physicians from the United States of America (USA), Europe, and Asia. For this retrospective bibliometric study 15 representative gynecologic, pediatric, radiologic, urologic, and surgical journals from the USA, Europe, and Asia were selected from the Web of Science database. From these, all n = 24182 publications of the years 2007/2008 and 2017/2018 were included. Gender and affiliations were assigned to first and senior authors using a software (Gender API, Passau, Germany), native speakers, and a web-based search. For statistics mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression were applied. In pediatrics, radiology, and urology, highest female first and senior author shares were consistently found in journals from the USA. In European journals proportions across all disciplines tripled (odds ratio 2.96 [95% CI 2.60–3.37], P < .0001). Asian journals showed three-times fewer female authorships than journals from the USA or Europe and the smallest increase (1.36 [1.11–1.66], P = .0026). Compared to the proportion of female physicians within each specialty, female first authors remained underrepresented in Asian journals and female senior authors in journals of all regions. In journals from the USA most female authors originated from institutes within the USA (36.2%), in European journals from the USA (21.1%) or Europe (21.7%). Women from Asian institutes were worst represented in journals of all regions with lowest rates in Asian journals (9.4%). In conclusion female first authors remained underrepresented in Asian journals, female senior authors and women from Asian institutes in journals from all regions. Programs for gender equality in science are thus particularly necessary to support female senior authors, for Asian journals, and women from Asian institutes. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Scientific collaboration plays a significant role in scientists’ research performance. When scientists move from one institution to another and leave the team they belong to or lead, they may continue collaborating with the former team because engaging in or building a new team takes time. In this study, we collected data from the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) website on 2,922 scientists who published first-tier journal papers defined by the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) before they moved to a new institution. By applying a Poisson regression model to the dataset, we explored the correlation between continued collaboration and the transition period after scientists moved, which is defined as the time span between the year of the move and the year when they published their first top-tier journal paper after moving. Our findings indicated that: (1) continued collaboration significantly shortens the transition period by 27.2%; (2) continued collaboration significantly shortens the transition period of senior scientists to a larger extent than that of junior scientists; (3) continued collaboration significantly shortens the transition period of social scientists to a larger extent than that of natural scientists; (4) the transition period is shorter after moves for scientists with higher inherent potential; and (5) there is no evidence that the transition period is associated with culture-related differences between the origin country and the destination country after the move, or whether they had lived in the destination country before. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract A growing number of scholars are using academic social networking sites (ASNSs) for informal academic exchange online. ASNSs have developed question and answer (Q&A) services to help scholars obtain directly relevant information from their peers. There is a paucity of research on Q&A use and interaction in the scholarly community beyond static analyses on Q&A content and influencing factors of using social Q&A sites. This study fills in the gap by examining the Q&A participants and interactions on ResearchGate, a worldwide ASNS, based on a sample of 3933 Q&A entries across five disciplines with 13,655 participants during 2018–2020. The results show that question respondents tend to have a higher scholarly reputation and social connectivity than questioners in most disciplines. Most core users in the Q&A interaction network are interdisciplinary, with Social Sciences’ core users having the strongest influence. In terms of response time, the question-answer and answer-answer time intervals conform to the power-law distribution of fat tail characteristics. Physical Sciences questions receive the quickest response among disciplines. The findings of this study expand and support the notion of disciplinary differences in information behavior. Research on Q&A behavior of ASNS users not only helps expand our understanding of information behaviors in various disciplinary contexts, but also allows such platforms to formulate incentive strategies to facilitate interaction, information seeking and sharing. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract The state of research in the Science of Team Science is characterised by a wide range of findings on how successful research collaboration should be structured. However, it remains unclear how the multitude of findings can be put into a hierarchical order with regard to their significance for the success of cooperation. This is where the article comes in: based on the state of research, the question of which intra- and interpersonal factors are most significant for the success of a research team is investigated. In order to explore the ten most important reasons for the success of a research collaboration, a Random Forest classifier is specified that predicts the success of research collaborations on the basis of 51 input variables. The analyses presented in the paper are based on representative survey data on n = 1.417 principal investigators and spokespersons of ongoing and completed research clusters funded by the German Research Foundation. The success of a research cluster is operationalised as the extent to which it has achieved the goals that it communicated to the funding agency before it began. Highly realistic and clear research objectives are central to the success of research clusters, as are comprehensive agreement on objectives, close interconnection of the subprojects’ research work and a fair and trusting cooperation climate. PubDate: 2023-03-01
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[2467 journals]
