The interdisciplinarity of research data: How widely is shared research data reused in the STEM fields?

The aim of this study was to examine the interdisciplinarity of research data in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The findings revealed that interdisciplinarity was not distributed evenly across journals serving the STEM fields. Based on the diversity of the references as measured by the Gini coefficient index, the mathematical sciences showed the greatest inequality, followed by astronomy/physics, the earth sciences, the biological sciences, and technology. Based on the number of Essential Science Indicator (ESI) fields, the biological sciences showed the greatest variety, followed by the earth sciences, technology, the mathematical sciences, chemistry, and computing, while engineering showed no variety. Lastly, based on the Leydesdorff interdisciplinarity formula outcomes, the earth sciences showed the greatest diversity, but earth sciences articles were cited in articles in fewer fields than biological sciences articles. This study contributes to the study of interdisciplinary data citation for data sharing and reuse in STEM fields with respect to the measurement of the balance, variety, and diversity of research data.     

Does the scholarly communication system satisfy the beliefs and aspirations of new researchers? Summarizing the Harbingers research

A study from the Harbingers research project provides a comprehensive assessment of the main features of the scholarly communications system as viewed by early career researchers (ECRs) in the final year of the study (2018). Aspects covered are: discovery and access, authorship practices, peer review, publishing strategies, open access publishing, open data, sharing, collaboration, social media, metrics, impact, reputation, libraries, publishers, and scholarly transformations. Nearly 120 science and social science researchers from seven countries were questioned about these 16 aspects. It was found that some scholarly features work well for ECRs, and in this category can be included: discovery and access, authorship practices, sharing, collaboration, and publishers. Reputation, publishing strategies, and impact are more problematical, and they, in turn, cause tensions regarding some other factors – social media, open access, and open data. Of the rest, libraries are largely invisible, and ECRs have conflicting views concerning ethical behaviour. Few envisage that transformational change will take place in the next 5 years.     

Are NIH-funded publications fulfilling the proposed research? An examination of concept-matchedness between NIH research grants and their supported publications

The conceptual connections between scientific grants and publications are important, yet often overlooked in quantitative studies of science. An analysis of such connections could offer important insights into how science is conducted by individual researchers and research teams under the social and economic conditions of science. This study aims to offer the first piece of evidence towards this endeavor by analyzing the ratio of keyword matchedness between accepted NIH research grants from 2008 to 2015 and their funded publications. By applying linear regression method, we identified and examined three identified predictors of the outcome: 1) the funding rate of an NIH research program in a specific year, 2) the year difference between grant and publication, and 3) the funding size of a grant. Our findings suggest that these three factors contribute to the outcome in different capacities. Moreover, all of them may have different performances in individual funding programs, which highlights the importance of understanding the differences among individual funding mechanisms.     

Problems of exclusionary research criteria: The case against the “usable knowledge” litmus test for social justice communication research

In 1996 five Loyola University faculty members proposed limiting the term “social justice communication research” exclusively to studies whose designs focused on “usable knowledge.” For them, that criterion necessitates that a legitimate social justice research project entail immediate action recommendations and direct researcher intervention in the interests of immediate study participants. This essay contends that such a litmus test restricts acceptable research to short‐term case studies aimed at immediately measurable outcomes produced by the researcher him‐ or herself, qualities that do not necessarily match the complex nature of problems of social in(justice) or exclusively yield the type of research outcomes that most powerfully address such problems. Widespread acceptance of their criterion: 1) limits scholarly influence to those few sites of struggle where a researcher's location and finite schedule allow extended personal engagement; 2) encourages counter‐productive dependence by lay social justice advocates on Communication researchers; 3) works against discovering and integrating broader, long‐term systemic solutions or effectively empowering advocates in other social justice struggles; 4) discourages the innovation of “the scholarship of discovery” with respect to social (in)justice issues in favor of the safer, predictable strategies of responsible “scholarship of application” (and vice versa) by necessitating the combination of conflicting objectives in a single scholarly project; and 5) promotes dysfunctional isolation and territoriality within the Communication discipline.     

An attempt of data exchange between the institutional repository and the information environment for the management of scientific research—ARP

In the present paper an attempt of data exchange between the institutional repository based on DSpace and the Academy Resource Planning System (ARP) of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), which is the information environment for management of scientific research in CAS, was described. It includes the development of a tool based on browser which imports data from EXCEL into DSpace and a tool which exports data from DSpace into EXCEL. Consequently, data can be exchanged between ARP and DSpace through EXCEL. In addition, the way to customize the input form and the display page according to different types of documents was introduced.     

Does the concentration of scientific research funding in institutions promote knowledge output?

Basic research is the main powerhouse of a country’s potential for continuous economic growth, and national-level scientific research funding is an important source of capital that supports this basic research. Given these observations, this paper takes micro-level data from projects funded by the Department of Management Sciences in the National Natural Science Foundation of China between 2006 and 2010 to examine the relationship between the efficient use of research funding and the level of concentrated funding in certain research institutions. In contrast to the positive externalities produced by the concentration of R&D activities, our study finds that the accumulation of scientific research funding at the institution level is negative correlated with the knowledge output of the principal investigators of projects within the research institution. We explore the sources of the negative correlation and discuss some policy implications.     

Does a gender-neutral name associate with the research impact of a scientist?

Women have long suffered in both academia and industry from lower status, underrepresentation, unequal treatment, and other challenges based on gender. This paper explores whether a gender-neutral name is associated with the research impact of a scientist by examining three years of citations. The data for this study are derived from publications indexed in ISI's Web of Science (WoS) database from 2009 to 2015. By assigning a name neutralization index score to each author, we investigate the relationship between the neutralization index and citations and find the following results: (1) generally, the more neutral the name, the more citations the publications received; (2) the neutral effect was more pronounced for authors with feminine names than for authors with masculine names.     

Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) evaluations of research performance

The Center for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University advocates the use of specific normalizations for assessing research performance with reference to a world average. The Journal Citation Score (JCS) and Field Citation Score (FCS) are averaged for the research group or individual researcher under study, and then these values are used as denominators of the (mean) Citations per publication (CPP). Thus, this normalization is based on dividing two averages. This procedure only generates a legitimate indicator in the case of underlying normal distributions. Given the skewed distributions under study, one should average the observed versus expected values which are to be divided first for each publication. We show the effects of the Leiden normalization for a recent evaluation where we happened to have access to the underlying data.     

Basic research in the Novosibirsk oblast’: Bibliometrical analysis for 2004–2009

The results from analyzing the scientific output of scientists from the Novosibirsk oblast’ are given based on works published in 2005–2009. The analysis was carried out using the data and potential of the Web of Science (WoS) and, in particular, information about domestic and foreign science foundations that supported particular studies, Journal Citation Reports, HistCite software, and certain additional data that included official statistics from Rosstat and involved indicators derived from the journal impact factor and the aggregate impact factor of the WoS knowledge category. The publications by the scientists from the oblast’ were distributed according to 133 WoS knowledge categories. Research in certain trends in 48 WoS knowledge categories carried out in the oblast’ is in no way inferior to and very often is even better than the global science standards. More than 50% of the publications were sponsored by domestic and foreign science foundations: the scientific quality of these works was considerably higher than that of the unsponsored studies. The coauthors of the articles published by scientists of the oblast’ in the period were their colleagues from 83 countries. R & D costs in the Novosibirsk oblast’ are used quite efficiently: in 2009 the publications by the scientists of the oblast’ accounted for more than 9% of the entire amount of works published all over Russia, while internal research and development expenses were only 2.5% of such expenses nationwide.     

Managing the “backend” of LIS research projects: A project management perspective

There is very little guidance in library and information science (LIS) literature about how researchers should manage the scope, time, costs, quality, human resources, communications, and risks associated with LIS research projects. To fill this gap, researchers tested the utility of project management principles (PMP) for planning and managing a project designed to enhance the information, digital, and financial literacy of the people earning less than $2 per day in India. The customization of PMP through 29 mechanisms and 60 action items was used to conduct focus groups and in-person surveys with over 150 participants, in their native language, at 10 public libraries. PMP were most helpful for managing risks (13 solutions), communications (11 solutions), and human resources (10 solutions) of the project and treating participants ethically. PMP developed in the West were helpful before, during, and after data collection in the LIS research project in a developing country.     

A sensitivity analysis of research institutions’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation

One of the critical issues in bibliometric research assessments is the time required to achieve maturity in citations. Citation counts can be considered a reliable proxy of the real impact of a work only if they are observed after sufficient time has passed from publication date. In the present work the authors investigate the effect of varying the time of citation observation on accuracy of productivity rankings for research institutions. Research productivity measures are calculated for all Italian universities active in the hard sciences in the 2001–2003 period, by individual field and discipline, with the time of the citation observation varying from 2004 to 2008. The objective is to support policy-makers in choosing a citation window that optimizes the tradeoff between accuracy of rankings and timeliness of the exercise.     

Prevalence of methodological transparency in the use of mixed methods research in library and information science research in South Africa and Nigeria, 2009–2015

Methodological transparency facilitates rigorous, trustworthy, and reliable mixed methods research (MMR). Because divergent views on the conceptualization of mixed methods can create confusion for researchers, methodological transparency can help researchers to replicate methods in other studies and attract them to mixed methods research. Many studies have been conducted to assess the utilization of mixed methods research in several disciplines, but few in library and information science (LIS) have studied how authors describe the methods used. This study investigated the clarity and detail provided about methodology in mixed methods research articles in LIS, focusing on South Africa and Nigeria. Content analysis was used to assess 104 doctoral theses, of which 10 used mixed methods. Results suggest that methodological transparency in MMR research is underrepresented in LIS. This study contributes to the discussion on how LIS can enhance the quality of mixed methods research studies by underscoring the importance of methodological transparency in such studies. Researchers and LIS educators can use the gaps identified by this study to use and report mixed methods appropriately in future research.     

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration,journal and document properties

This study assesses whether eleven factors associate with higher impact research: individual, institutional and international collaboration; journal and reference impacts; abstract readability; reference and keyword totals; paper, abstract and title lengths. Authors may have some control over these factors and hence this information may help them to conduct and publish higher impact research. These factors have been previously researched but with partially conflicting findings. A simultaneous assessment of these eleven factors for Biology and Biochemistry, Chemistry and Social Sciences used a single negative binomial-logit hurdle model estimating the percentage change in the mean citation counts per unit of increase or decrease in the predictor variables. The journal Impact Factor was found to significantly associate with increased citations in all three areas. The impact and the number of cited references and their average citation impact also significantly associate with higher article citation impact. Individual and international teamwork give a citation advantage in Biology and Biochemistry and Chemistry but inter-institutional teamwork is not important in any of the three subject areas. Abstract readability is also not significant or of no practical significance. Among the article size features, abstract length significantly associates with increased citations but the number of keywords, title length and paper length are insignificant or of no practical significance. In summary, at least some aspects of collaboration, journal and document properties significantly associate with higher citations. The results provide new and particularly strong statistical evidence that the authors should consider publishing in high impact journals, ensure that they do not omit relevant references, engage in the widest possible team working, when appropriate, and write extensive abstracts. A new finding is that whilst is seems to be useful to collaborate and to collaborate internationally, there seems to be no particular need to collaborate with other institutions within the same country.     

Communication’s forgotten narratives: the lost history of Charles Siepmann and critical policy research

The field of communication has much to recover from its intellectual history, particularly critical traditions that have been pushed to the margins. Such a project is inherently political: how scholars narrate the histories of their fields reflect tacit assumptions about discursive boundaries and what counts for legitimate scholarship. Prominent historical narratives typically emphasize certain sub-fields and research traditions while giving short shrift to others. Suggesting larger erasures and deeper tensions in the history of the field, this article aims to recover one such neglected thread, embodied by a reformist policy scholar who is all but forgotten in communication research: Charles Siepmann.     

An investigation of the relationship between scientists’ mobility to/from China and their research performance

A large number of overseas elites were brought back to China by the policy in the past decade. However, name disambiguation defied investigations on the relationship between their mobility and research performance. By taking advantage of the ORCID website and applying causal inference strategies, we investigated 2489 China-connected scientists’ academic performance in the Web of Science database in terms of their job mobility, including 1388 scientists who moved to China the treatment group, and 1101 scientists with a possibility to move to China the control group. The results show that first, scientists moving to China have a new growth pattern where both their productivity and the rates of being corresponding authors in publications grew more rapidly than before; however, they made fewer contributions to the four top journals, Nature, Science, Cell, and PNAS. Second, the research performance of the scientists is affected by the time of mobility towards China, the countries from which they moved, and the disciplines of their publications. Last, China now maintains symmetrical inflow-outflow patterns with most countries, especially developed countries in Europe and North America, with only a few exceptions (e.g., Pakistan).