|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Simon D Angus (SoDa Laboratories, Monash University); Kadir Atalay (SoDa Laboratories, Monash University); Jonathan Newton (SoDa Laboratories, Monash University); David Ubilava (SoDa Laboratories, Monash University) |
| Abstract: | Is the representation of editors at prestigious economics journals geographically diverse? Using data on the affiliations of academics working in an editorial capacity at such journals, we map the locations of editorial power within the economics profession. This allows us to rank institutions, countries and continents according to this measure of power. In addition, by considering the average distance of a journal’s editorial affiliations from a geographic mean, we rank journals by geographic diversity. The magnitudes of the geographic differences we find are striking. Over half the journals we consider have over two thirds of their editorial power located in the USA. A large majority of journals have a tiny editorial contribution from academics located outside of North America and Europe. Any one of the states of California, Massachusetts and Illinois has more power than the four continents of Asia, South America, Africa and Australasia combined. |
| Keywords: | editorial power, geography, diversity, economics |
| JEL: | A10 A14 |
| Date: | 2020–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ajr:sodwps:2020-03&r=all |
| By: | Teresa Gomez-Diaz (ligm - Laboratoire d'Informatique Gaspard-Monge - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Fédération de Recherche Bézout - ESIEE Paris - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - UPEM - Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée); Tomas Recio (Universidad de Cantabria [Santander]) |
| Abstract: | Our proposal of an Open Science definition as a political and legal framework where research outputs are shared and disseminated in order to be rendered visible, accessible, reusable is developed, standing over the concepts enhanced by the Budapest Open Science Initiative (BOAI), and by the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) and Open data movements. We elaborate this proposal through a detailed analysis of some selected EC policies, laws and the role of research evaluation practices. |
| Keywords: | Research data,Open access,Open Science,Research software,Infrastructures,Research evaluation,Ciencia abierta,Science ouverte |
| Date: | 2020–09–16 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02962399&r=all |
| By: | Gloria Gheno (Innovative Data Analysis) |
| Abstract: | The bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis methodologies were proposed in the early 60s and 70s to study the structure and the production of scientific communities. Bibliographic coupling is fundamental to understand the current state of a particular research area and its possible and potential future direction, while co-citation analysis is used to map the roots of academic works, fundamental to the development of a specific research field. With the first method, papers which have a common reference are paired and the strength of the link is given by the number of the references in common. With the second, instead, the papers co-cited by one or more documents are grouped. Both methodologies assume that papers, citing the same articles or cited from the same article, have similar aspects. Because these two methodologies have been considered separately until now, I propose a new algorithm, based on the bicluster analysis, which applies them together and I create an index to measure the similarity of the elements of the obtained clusters. Therefore, this new method groups together the bibliographically coupled papers and the co-cited references. In the obtained bicluster, the references grouped together represent the roots from which is born the trend to which the citing papers, grouped together, adhere. I apply this new method to economic papers, published between 2011 and 2020, which have "big data" among the keywords, so as to understand in a more exhaustive and rapid way how the current state and the future direction of the study of the big data are in the economic sector. |
| Keywords: | Bibliographic coupling, bicluster, big data, co-citation analysis |
| JEL: | C19 N01 O10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:sek:iacpro:11113161&r=all |
| By: | Zhang, Xijie; Grebel, Thomas; Budzinski, Oliver |
| Abstract: | Modern media technologies paved the way to the open access movement. Instead of the traditional academic subscription and publishing model, which allowed few big publishers to charge excessive publishing fees, the open access model raises the hope for a fair system, where scientific content is freely accessible and thus the dissemination of research work becomes possible at little cost. However, previous literature pointed out that big publishers seem to be able to preserve their market power when going from the subscription-based model to the open access model. In this paper, we take a closer look at the differences across disciplines. The publication routines in Social Sciences, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Health Sciences differ to a substantial extent. On these grounds, we test whether there are also differences in the explanations for the article processing charges (APC) across these disciplines. For doing so, we combined various data sources such as the dataset of the "Directory of Open Access", the "OpenAPC Initiative" and the "CiteScore Metrics". Our regression results show that the differences across the four fields in terms of publication habits and endowment levels allow publishers to exploit their market power to different extents. |
| Date: | 2020 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:tuiedp:145&r=all |