|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Karl Gunnar Persson (Department of Economics, Copenhagen University) |
| Abstract: | This paper addresses two issues. It documents the changes in the publication strategy of the members of the Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen over the last 50 years, away from a broad domestic audience to the international community of peers and scholars. From having been only occasionally present in the world of science the Department has increased its impact from the end of the 1980s.Exploiting data on the impact of journal articles the paper makes a tentative estimate of a spectacular increase in research labour productivity. |
| JEL: | A B |
| Date: | 2014–05–15 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:kud:kuiedp:1414&r=sog |
| By: | Graziella Bertocchi; Alfonso Gambardella; Tullio Jappelli; Carmela A. Nappi; Franco Peracchi |
| Abstract: | A relevant question for the organization of large scale research assessments is whether bibliometric evaluation and informed peer review where reviewers know where the work was published, yield similar results. It would suggest, for instance, that less costly bibliometric evaluation might - at least partly - replace informed peer review, or that bibliometric evaluation could reliably monitor research in between assessment exercises. We draw on our experience of evaluating Italian research in Economics, Business and Statistics, where almost 12,000 publications dated 2004-2010 were assessed. A random sample from the available population of journal articles shows that informed peer review and bibliometric analysis produce similar evaluations of the same set of papers. Whether because of independent convergence in assessment, or the influence of bibliometric information on the community of reviewers, the implication for the organization of these exercises is that these two approaches are substitutes. |
| Keywords: | Research Assessment, Peer Review, Bibliometric Evaluation, VQR |
| JEL: | C80 I23 O30 |
| Date: | 2013–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mod:dembwp:0020&r=sog |
| By: | Anne Casati (Ressource-Conseil - Ressource-Conseil); Corine Genet (MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - Grenoble École de Management (GEM)) |
| Abstract: | Although Principal Investigators are key actors in scientific fields, there is little focus on what they actually do in shaping new scientific directions. This paper studies PIs practices to better understand their roles. Our central contribution is to identify the different ways in which PIs engage themselves in science, in implementing four main practices: 'focusing in scientific discipline', 'innovating and problem solving', 'shaping new paradigms and models' and 'brokering science'. While 'focusing' and 'innovating' remain close to project management, 'shaping' and 'brokering' look more like entrepreneurial activities, shaping new horizons, reshaping boundaries between subfields and among organizations. External orientations to how they engage in different practices shapes PIs roles to articulate different worlds and to reshape the boundaries of organizations, knowledge and markets. Studying PIs' practices and their combinations advances our knowledge about their roles in managing the interplay between science policies and scientific agendas more effectively highlighting their role as scientific entrepreneurs. |
| Keywords: | Principal investigator; scientific entrepreneur; practices; engagement. boundary, career path, role; position. |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00756165&r=sog |