Search results

This paper aims to semantically linking scientific research events implied by scientific and technical literature to support information analysis and information service applications. Literature research is an important method to acquire scientific and technical information which is important for research, development and innovation of science and technology. It is difficult but urgently required to acquire accurate, timely, rapid, short and comprehensive information from the large-scale and fast-growing literature, especially in the big data era. Existing literature-based information retrieval systems focus on basic data organization, and they are far from meeting the needs of information analytics. It becomes urgent to organize and analyze scientific research events related to scientific and technical literature for forecasting development trend of science and technology.

Scientific literature such as a paper or a patent is represented as a scientific research event, which contains elements including when, where, who, what, how and why. Metadata of literature is used to formulate scientific research events that are implied in introduction and related work sections of literature. Named entities and research objects such as methods, materials and algorithms can be extracted from texts of literature by using text analysis. The authors semantically link scientific research events, entities and objects, and then, they construct the event space for supporting scientific and technical information analysis.

This paper represents scientific literature as events, which are coarse-grained units comparing with entities and relations in current information organizations. Events and semantic relations among them together formulate a semantic link network, which could support event-centric information browsing, search and recommendation.

The proposed model is a theoretical model, and it needs to verify the efficiency in further experimental application research. The evaluation and applications of semantic link network of scientific research events are further research issues.

This paper regards scientific literature as scientific research events and proposes an approach to semantically link events into a network with multiple-typed entities and relations. According to the needs of scientific and technical information analysis, scientific research events are organized into event cubes which are distributed in a three-dimensioned space for easy-to-understand and information visualization.

BOOKS are among the greatest and most wonderful achievements of human genius, they are also a powerful means of struggle for progress. The book accompanies man all his life; it is a creation of his brain and soul. It reflects the life of mankind and is the result of collective efforts of author and publisher, type‐setter and illustrator. But foremost a book is always and everywhere a social and political phenomenon. One of the most apt evaluations of the book was given by V. I. Lenin in 1917, when he was known to state to A. V. Lunacharsky, “The book is a great force indeed”.

Scientific writings age; individual documents, issues or volumes of scientific journals are, eventually, less valued and less used with the passage of time. Long periods of time, say more than several decades, render portions of the literature obsolete, and ‘aging’ is evident. However, controversy has developed recently about quantitative models, particularly Brookes, which proposes a systematic exponential aging process for the corpus of library periodical holdings. In disagreement with these models, Sandison presents use patterns showing no aging; and Line points to methodological difficulties in demonstrating aging. Both the models, and the questions raised regarding their validity are of considerable interest and importance to our understanding of the nature of scientific information and the management of collections. We show, here, that citation data conform well to the Brookes model, but the chief findings regard the nature of the aging process and its apparent range within scientific literatures. A scientific journal which is used as an archive ages slowly; one which supports a research front ages quickly. Aging depends not merely on the material itself, but its user, and a single journal may be aged very differently by different user communities. Lastly, aging rates vary among journals, and it is relatively easy to identify journals which age at about the rate at which the literature grows and journals which appear to exhaust most of their utility within a few years.

The purpose of this paper is to survey and analyse the literature emanating from less developed countries (LDCs) and international agencies and dealing with their perception of the needs of LDCs for scientific and technical information (STI) in relation to social and economic development.

In 1971 UNISIST proposed a model for scientific and technical communication. This model has been widely cited and additional models have been added to the literature. There is a need to bring this model to the focus of information science (IS) research as well as to update and revise it. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons for this need. On the empirical side much has happened in the developments of electronic communication that needs to be considered. From a theoretical point of view the domain‐analytic view has proposed that differences between different disciplines and domains should be emphasised. The original model only considered scientific and technical communication as a whole. There is a need both to compare with the humanities and social sciences and to regard internal differences in the sciences. There are also other reasons to reconsider and modify this model today. Offers not only a descriptive model, but also a theoretical perspective from which information systems may be understood and evaluated. In addition to this provides empirical exemplification and proposals for research initiatives.

This systematic literature review provides an overview of the entrepreneurship education research, by outlining the recent trends of research on entrepreneurship education. This research study has two primary goals. First one is the identification and categorization of the entrepreneurship education in scientific research by providing sequential distribution of published articles, and the research output of scientific journals, authors, and different countries. Another goal is to recognize the themes of research that are most developed and examined by the researchers.

This research systematically examines published scientific documents on entrepreneurship education taken from Scopus database ranging from 1950 to 2021. A total of 1,531 articles were selected for final analysis after a systematic process of elimination based on specific criteria. VOSviewer was used for bibliographic coupling, keyword co-occurrence, distance based mapping, clustering, and co-citation analysis of articles, countries, journals, and authors.

The systematic literature review revealed that in the last 15 years, scientific literature has shown a variation in direction of research in this area. The literature has moved from focusing on traditional means of entrepreneurship education towards more subtle and output-oriented factors of entrepreneurship education such as intentions, motivation, attitude, and behavior. The most popular topic among researchers and with the greater number of published papers is entrepreneurial intentions, and it is closely related to practice, innovation, and entrepreneurial learning.

This is one of the few systematic literature reviews on entrepreneurship education, and perhaps the only systematic review that analyzes literature on entrepreneurship education from 1950 to 2021 with VOSviewer analysis techniques.

According to Kuhn's The structure of scientific revolutions normal science makes progress under a unifying paradigm while the humanities flounder among many competing paradigms. Bibliometric reference analysis is here used to test for evidence of this dichotomy in publishing and citation patterns. 227 critical (humanities) papers (with 13,355 references) drawn randomly from exhaustive Dead Sea Scrolls bibliographies are compared with 162 archaeological (scientific) papers (2,494 references) from the same population. References in critical papers (where‐lack of paradigm unity diffuses research and impedes assimilation of individual papers) in general (with and without inclusion of ancient classics) and articles in particular (with/without) are found, as hypothesised, to have significantly higher average ages than references in the archaeological papers. Reference density ratios adjusted for changes in number of citable and citing papers suggest no decline in use with age for critical sources as is true in archaeology. Archaeological, but not critical, references cluster on a research front and are concentrated in the years of data collection. Periodicals (not less‐timely monographs) account, as hypothesised, for significantly more archaeological than critical papers, references, and references in articles only.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and validation of an instrument for measuring intellectual capital in the academic research context. The current research context describes a new paradigm of scientific production characterized by interdisciplinarity, heterogeneity and the intensification of the relations between the generators of knowledge. In this scenario, traditional measures of intellectual capital do not capture all the variables that make up the environment in which the research activities are carried out. This transformation of research processes suggests the need to bring theories of organizational behavior, more appropriate to an organizational context, to the study of scientific context. Thus, the paper contextualizes the intellectual capital approach, thereby explaining how the different attributes that build it influence scientific productivity and providing a measurement instrument to evaluate relative levels of intellectual capital in an academic research context.

The scale was designed through a double qualitative–quantitative scale development process. The literature on intellectual capital does not provide strong theoretical support for the definition of a specific set of items to be applied in the specific academic research context. Consequently, the scale constructs and observable variables were initially conceptualized through a Delphi panel. This initial set of indicators was empirically validated through a second quantitative stage to a sample of 1,798 Spanish academics. Given that no prior published studies have examined the construct validity of the proposed scale, and the proposed scale is not based on other previously validated scales, the authors used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to assess the internal consistency, using Cronbach’s α to determine reliability.

Drawing on the evidence obtained from a double qualitative–quantitative process, a scale consisting of 47 items was proposed to measure the three dimensions of intellectual capital, namely, the researcher’s human capital, as well as the nature of the social capital and organizational capital of the team in which the scholar is integrated. The process of identifying and validating indicators of intellectual capital allowed the authors to identify certain intangible elements that are key in the research process and that, therefore, determine scientific productivity. Thus, the proposed scale contributes by conceptualizing new variables that could be used to deepen and broaden the study of the determinants of research performance. The contextualization of intellectual capital approach can also help to assess the value of intangibles, offering an external reporting tool and making universities’ social contributions more visible to public and private stakeholders, justifying the efforts made by societies in the generation of academic knowledge.

The empirical analysis was carried out with an initial sample of 1,798 Spanish scholars. The validation of the scale should therefore be confirmed in different national contexts, with larger data sets. Likewise, the use of longitudinal data sets could help to study the effects of intellectual capital in academic research, thereby contributing to the ongoing debate on the determinants of research performance.

From a practical perspective, the instrument could be considered both as a management and an external reporting tool, providing a self-assessment instrument of the levels of intellectual capital. As a management tool, a specific measure of intellectual capital in an academic context could help to identify training needs, the implementation of practices that encourage the capability for building research networks and the development of reports with intellectual capital-related inputs for the justification of the resources received. At an institutional level, the proposed set of indicators also identifies the attributes of scholars linked to higher scientific performance, and the scale could be used as an instrument for selection processes in academic institutions, to develop practices related to the distribution of workload or the publication of intellectual capital indicators of its researchers in a healthy exercise of transparency.

The topic I wish to present is not a simple one and the position is confused by discordant voices each advocating different solutions to quite different problems. I will present to you certain facts which seem to me to be important, and some possible interpretations of these facts. The whole is designed to provoke discussion of the problem of improving our technical library service. The essential thesis is that the future lines of development of public technological library services will be mainly influenced by factors outside the control of the library profession but which must be appreciated if librarians are not to act like King Canute and attempt to stop the incoming tide. Lest my reference to this anecdote should conjure up a picture of a spot on the English coast and a twice‐daily tide, let me urge you to treat the world as our stage and the next few decades as our unit of time.

The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical insight into the use of the term and concept of grey literature in recent scientific papers.

The author conducted a scientometric analysis with Scopus data on 1,606 papers mentioning grey (or gray) literature published in 2018. Additionally, the author analysed the evolution between 1999 and 2018, and performed a content analysis on a random subsample of 70 papers in open access.

The percentage of papers that mention grey literature is low (0.05%) but steadily rising. They are from over 100 countries and a long tail of institutions, covering, namely, medical and health sciences and related topics. The dominant document type is systematic reviews, defining grey literature generally thought of as “unpublished”, “not peer reviewed” and “not in databases” and meaning, most of the time, all kinds of reports and conference papers. A large variety of sources and options on how to retrieve grey literature is mentioned, including Google and Google Scholar, specialised digital libraries, relevant websites, handsearching in bibliographic references and contact with experts in the field.

The study is limited to papers indexed in the Scopus database, mainly journals, written in English, with a bias in favour of medical and life sciences.

There is no recent study on the real usage of the term of grey literature in a large sample of academic papers.