|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2010‒07‒17
three papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Chia-Lin Chang; Michael McAleer (University of Canterbury); Les Oxley (University of Canterbury) |
| Abstract: | The paper is concerned with analysing what makes a great journal great in economics, based on quantifiable measures. Alternative Research Assessment Measures (RAM) are discussed, with an emphasis on the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science database (hereafter ISI). The various ISI RAM that are calculated annually or updated daily are defined and analysed, including the classic 2-year impact factor (2YIF), 5-year impact factor (5YIF), Immediacy (or zero-year impact factor (0YIF)), Eigenfactor score, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance Per Paper Online), h-index, Zinfluence, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors), and two new RAM measure, the Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (STAR) score and the Impact Factor Inflation (IFI) score. The ISI RAM data are analysed for the most highly cited journals in the ISI categories of Economics, Management, Business, and Business - Finance. The journals are chosen on the basis of 2YIF (including self citations by both author and journal). The application to these four ISI categories could be used as a template for other ISI categories in both the Social Sciences and the Sciences, and as a benchmark for newer journals in a range of ISI disciplines. In addition to evaluating high quality research in the most highly cited Economics journals, the paper also compares the most highly cited journals in Management, Business, and Business - Finance, alternative RAM, highlights the similarities and differences in alternative RAM criteria, finds that several ISI RAM capture similar performance characteristics for the most highly cited Economics, Management, Business and Business - Finance journals, determines that the Immediacy and PI-BETA scores are not highly correlated with the other ISI RAM, and hence conveys additional information regarding ISI RAM criteria. Harmonic mean rankings of the 12 RAM criteria for the most highly cited journals in the four categories are also presented. It was shown that emphasizing THE impact factor, specifically the 2-year impact factor, of a journal to the exclusion of other useful and illuminating RAM criteria, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal performance and influence on the profession. |
| Keywords: | Research assessment measures; impact factors; Immediacy; Eigenfactor; Article Influence; h-index; C3PO; Zinfluence; PI-BETA; STAR; IFI |
| JEL: | C43 C10 Z0 |
| Date: | 2010–07–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cbt:econwp:10/43&r=sog |
| By: | Grimpe, Christoph |
| Abstract: | Several reviews and impact assessment studies have concluded that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP6) succeeded in fostering scientific excellence and attracting the 'A Team' in public science. However, these studies typically fail to contrast their findings with the variety of funding opportunities available to public science. Based on a sample of more than 1,000 scientists at universities and public research institutes in Germany, this paper finds that highly credentialed faculty typically chose other funding opportunities than FP6, for example grants from science foundations or industry. In fact, FP6 only seems to be attractive for the scientific 'B Team' that works rather application oriented. The findings further indicate that an FP6 participation substitutes for other grant programmes while the latter are complementary to each other. If this is intended to be changed other funding priorities will be required, for example smaller team sizes, less predefined research topics, a reduced administrative burden, and a higher quality of the peer review system. -- |
| Keywords: | Research funding,scientist productivity,Sixth Framework Programme |
| JEL: | L13 O31 |
| Date: | 2010 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:10031&r=sog |
| By: | Woolley, Richard; Cañibano, Carolina |
| Abstract: | The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theoretical discussion of scientific mobility in order to progress understanding of the role it plays in shaping and fostering knowledge transfers, which in turn could benefit the scientific and technological advancement of developing countries. We use Callon?s socioeconomics of scientific research (1994, 2002) as the theoretical basis for posing the question: to what extent are the components of scientific knowledge embodied in scientific human capital (tacit knowledge, scientific skills, problem solving capabilities, etc.) actually appropriable and rival? Mainstream economics assumes that rivalry and appropriability are intrinsic properties of human capital. We argue, however, that ?external? factors, particularly the configuration of networks, play a role in determining the degree of rivalry and appropriability of knowledge embodied in scientific human capital, turning therefore these characteristics into extrinsic (and not intrinsic) ones. This has important consequences for the analysis of economic allocation and distribution of human capital and for the understanding of scientific mobility and the circulation and replication of knowledge. Callon?s framework forces us to think about scientific mobility and its role in the diffusion of scientific knowledge in a different way, using the language of networks and emergent and consolidated configurations. |
| JEL: | O15 J61 D80 |
| Date: | 2010–07–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ing:wpaper:201007&r=sog |