Search results

The authors seek to better understand the relationships between science production, national wealth, inequality, and human development around the globe.

The chapter uses econometric models, including Granger causality, to test alternate hypotheses about whether more economic wealth is related to more science or if more science leads to more wealth.

The immediate result of our models is that a country’s wealth contributes to the conditions necessary for productive science. While large countries produce many research articles in the STEM+ fields more or less irrespective of their per capita GDP, with countries like the Soviet Union, China, or India being important contributors to world science, the most productive countries were the richer ones. GDP per capita values are important predictors for higher numbers of STEM+ research articles adjusted for population size. Nevertheless, human development and income equality also have a positive relationship with science productivity. While the effect of income equality is less strong, it has importantly and steadily increased over the last 50 years.

This chapter is among the first to show that countries with similar levels of human development that are more equal in income distribution are more productive in science, while countries of similar wealth that are more equal in income distribution are not necessarily more productive in science.

Citation analysis for the purposes of this survey is taken to mean the analysis of the citations or references which form part of the scholarly apparatus of primary communication. It is not taken to include study of the references appearing in secondary (abstracting or indexing) services, in subject bibliographies, or in lists or catalogues of the holdings or issues of libraries, although analysis of these latter sources of data can sometimes provide similar information to that derived from citations in the primary literature. The essence of the distinction is that citation in the primary literature expressly states a connection between two documents, one which cites and the other which is cited, whereas citation in other listings does not usually imply any connection between documents other than that effected by the indexing machinery. If libraries kept records of the materials requested, borrowed, or read by their individual users, and if these records could be synthesised so as to produce complete borrowing or reading lists for individuals (taking account, that is, of document acquisition by individuals from a number of sources), then the resultant data could be used for analytical purposes in the same way as citation data from primary publication and with much the same justification.

This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite.

The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer.

Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles.

The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self‐serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science.

This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.

There is little mystery as to why the publicly subsidised expansion of college enrolments has been common during postwar years: popular demand that college opportunities be made more universal has motivated government officials to establish programmes promoting enrolment expansion. It should also be recognised that such programmes are often carried out to complement more comprehensive public efforts designed to meet national needs. A concentration on the most important events in the US which have contributed to the linkage of policies for national development and expansion of higher education shows that higher education is unlikely to lose its dual role as a centre of research, and as an institution open to a wide cross‐section of society. Further, most colleges and universities are so dependent on public financial support that future plans will be dependent on the policy makers.

The establishment of Science Cafés has become a popular strategy to enhance informal yet instruction-oriented interaction between medical and scientific experts and members of the relevant local communities. The purpose of this chapter is to report on two significant findings of a mixed-methods evaluation of the SCI (Science and Communities Interact) Café. Method: The Clinical and Translational Science Award in the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston established an SCI Café program in 2013 to enable local residents to engage in dialogs with clinicians and researchers regarding their scientific interests and health concerns. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the program. Results: The essential experience of SCI Café (SC) is updating one's knowledge of a topic. The primary comparative and analytical feature of SC participation is expertise. Expertise varies in terms of the social position of the participants: graduate student, university staff, engaged participant, topical participant, and curious participant.

In this chapter we discuss attitudinal and affective factors in the context of science teams. We review some of the key findings on conflict, trust, and cohesion in teams and discuss the differentiation between team-related and task-related definitions of each. In so doing, we discuss their relevance to team effectiveness in science teams and provide guidance on notional areas of research for understanding how these are related to effectiveness in science teams.

A citation study was carried out on all 217 academics who teach in UK library and information science schools. These authors between them received 622 citations in Social Scisearch for articles they had published between 1988 and the present. The results were ranked by department, and compared to the ratings awarded to the departments in the 1992 Universities Funding Council Research Assessment Exercise. Using the Spearman Rank Order Correlation coefficient, it was found that there is a statistically significant correlation between the numbers of citations received by a department in total, or the average number of citations received in the department per academic, and the Research Assessment Exercise rating. The paper concludes that this provides further independent support for the validity of citation counting, even when using just the first authors as a search tool for cited references. The paper also concludes that the cost and effort of the Research Assessment Exercise may not be justified when a simpler and cheaper alternative, namely a citation counting exercise, could be undertaken. The paper also concludes that the University of North London would probably have benefitted from being included in the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise.