|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Justus Haucap; Nima Moshgbar; Wolfgang Benedikt Schmal |
| Abstract: | The German DEAL agreements between German universities and research institutions on the one side and Springer Nature and Wiley on the other side facilitate easy open access publishing for researchers located in Germany. We use a dataset of all publications in chemistry from 2016 to 2020 and apply a difference-in-differences approach to estimate the impact on eligible scientists’ choice of publication outlet. We find that even in the short period following the conclusion of these DEAL agreements, publication patterns in the field of chemistry have changed, as eligible researchers have increased their publications in Wiley and Springer Nature journals at the cost of other journals. From that two related competition concerns emerge: First, academic libraries may be, at least in the long run, left with fewer funds and incentives to subscribe to non-DEAL journals published by smaller publishers or to fund open access publications in these journals. Secondly, eligible authors may prefer to publish in journals included in the DEAL agreements, thereby giving DEAL journals a competitive advantage over non-DEAL journals in attracting good papers. Given the two-sided market nature of the academic journal market, these effects may both further spur the concentration process in this market. |
| Keywords: | DEAL, open access, academic journals, STM journals, academic publishing |
| JEL: | D43 I23 L86 |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_8963&r=all |
| By: | Jelnov, Pavel; Weiss, Yoram |
| Abstract: | We study the relationship between age and influence in a closed group of leading economists. We consider, as a measure of influence, monthly RePEc rankings and address the dynamics of rankings within the top group as a function of age. We find that the rankings peak at age 60 or 30 years after Ph.D. graduation. Differently from other leaders, current and future Nobel laureates do not experience deterioration of the rankings if their works and citations are discounted by recursive impact factor, and their ranking with respect to the breadth of citations across fields improves at old age. |
| Keywords: | aging,citations,influence,Nobel,research productivity |
| JEL: | J24 |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:glodps:810&r=all |
| By: | Giulio Marini (Social Research Institute IoE UCL, UK); Viviana Meschitti (Huddersfield Business School, University of Huddersfield, UK) |
| Abstract: | Some individual funding schemes aim at recognize excellence of early and/or mid-career researchers in order to allow them boost their potential. Some schemes are munificent endowments, assuring autonomy and security. This is the case of one of the European flagship schemes – the European Research Council (ERC). In Italy, a very similar scheme called FIRB has a similar rationale. Both schemes are supposed to make excellence “fly higher”. The paper checks whether such ERC and FIRB recipients are thereafter more productive in terms of quality and influence testing against a control group of Italian academics of similar age, rank and discipline who did not win such individual grants. Results show that ERC recipients ameliorate research performance more than FIRB recipients did, although differences with control group don’t show always a particular additional effect in research outputs when comparing with pre-awarding performances (difference-in-difference tests). On the other hand, we find a strong Matthew effect in promotions, being the credential of having recipient of an ERC or a FIRB per se the strongest predictor of promotion, other achievements being equal. Policy recommendations speculate whether an egalitarian non-stratified higher education system like the Italian one is ideal home for these schemes, and whether the Italian system can afford a national scheme overlapping international ones, considering long-lasting shortage of financial resources and the egalitarian structure of its system. |
| Keywords: | Policy effect; Grants recipients; European Research Council; FIRB; Early and mid-career researchers; Research performance; academic career; promotions |
| JEL: | C93 I23 M52 O32 O38 |
| Date: | 2021–03–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:qss:dqsswp:2108&r=all |
| By: | Gadd, Elizabeth |
| Abstract: | Draws parallels between the problematic use of GDP to evaluate economic success with the use of global university rankings to evaluate university success. Inspired by Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics, this perspective argues that the pursuit of growth as measured by such indicators creates universities that ‘grow’ up the rankings rather than those which ‘thrive’ or ‘mature’. Such growth creates academic wealth divides within and between countries, despite the direction of growth as inspired by the rankings not truly reflecting universities’ critical purpose or contribution. Highlights the incompatibility between universities’ alignment with socially responsible practices and continued engagement with socially irresponsible ranking practices. Proposes four possible ways of engendering change in the university rankings space. Concludes by calling on leaders of ‘world-leading’ universities to join together to ‘lead the world’ in challenging global university rankings, and to set their own standards for thriving and maturing universities. |
| Date: | 2021–03–14 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:gxbn5&r=all |
| By: | Yaqin, Ahmad Ainul |
| Abstract: | It often happens that a book cited by several articles or scientific works is not read by Google Scholar, so it becomes uncomfortable for the author of a book whose book is not indexed by Google Scholar, because it is not published. on line. Salvatore Marco Giampaolo (2018) experienced a problem regarding the number of citations on Google Scholar, he said that I had a problem with Google Scholar. Some of the citations to my paper just disappear. I know that numbers can be reduced if two different versions of the paper are identified as one article, but that's not what I'm talking about. Saturday I have a paper with 129 citations. The same paper on Sunday has only 35 citations. The same for the second case which went from about 40 to 3. A simple examination with several colleagues has highlighted the fact that my case is not unique. Have you ever encountered such a problem? Do you know how to fix it? Thanks in advance for help. All the best. Some examples of unreadable citations on Google Scholar can be presented in the following bibliography. |
| Date: | 2021–01–23 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:k62s4&r=all |