oru.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (5 of 5) Show all publications
van den Besselaar, P. & Sandström, U. (2016). Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study. Scientometrics, 106(1), 143-162
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study
2016 (English)In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 106, no 1, p. 143-162Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

We take up the issue of performance differences between male and female researchers, and investigate the change of performance differences during the early career. In a previous paper it was shown that among starting researchers gendered performance differences seem small to non-existent (Van Arensbergen et al. 2012). If the differences do not occur in the early career anymore, they may emerge in a later period, or may remain absent. In this paper we use the same sample of male and female researchers, but now compare performance levels about 10 years later. We use various performance indicators: full/fractional counted productivity, citation impact, and relative citation impact in terms of the share of papers in the top 10 % highly cited papers. After the 10 years period, productivity of male researchers has grown faster than of female researcher, but the field normalized (relative) citation impact indicators of male and female researchers remain about equal. Furthermore, performance data do explain to a certain extent why male careers in our sample develop much faster than female researchers' careers; but controlling for performance differences, we find that gender is an important determinant too. Consequently, the process of hiring academic staff still remains biased.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2016
Keywords
Gender bias, Academic careers, Performance differences, Longitudinal study
National Category
Information Studies Computer Sciences
Research subject
Computer Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-47983 (URN)10.1007/s11192-015-1775-3 (DOI)000368075800009 ()2-s2.0-84954397574 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, P12-1302:1
Note

Funding Agency:

ERC through the GendERC 610706

Available from: 2016-02-05 Created: 2016-02-05 Last updated: 2018-01-10Bibliographically approved
Wang, Q. & Sandström, U. (2015). Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology. Research Evaluation, 24(3), 271-281
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology
2015 (English)In: Research Evaluation, ISSN 0958-2029, E-ISSN 1471-5449, Vol. 24, no 3, p. 271-281Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The aim of this article is twofold: (1) to provide a methodology for measurement of cognitive distance between researchers and (2) to explore the role of cognitive distance on the results of peer review processes. Cited references and the content of articles are used to represent their respective scientific knowledge bases. Based on the two different approaches-Author-Bibliographic Coupling analysis and Author-Topic analysis-we apply the methodology on a recent competition for grants from the Swedish Strategic Foundation. Results indicate that cognitive distances between applicants and reviewers might influence peer review results, but that the impact is to some extent at the unexpected end. The main contribution of this article is the elaboration on the relevance of the concept of cognitive distance to the issue of research evaluation in general, and especially in relation to peer review as a model used in grant decisions.

Keywords
cognitive distance, peer review process, grant decisions, author bibliographic coupling, author topic analysis
National Category
Information Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-45586 (URN)10.1093/reseval/rvv009 (DOI)000358019000004 ()
Note

Funding Agencies:

Chinese Ministry of Education

Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (R.J)

Available from: 2015-08-18 Created: 2015-08-18 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved
van den Besselaar, P. & Sandström, U. (2015). Does Quantity Make a Difference?. In: Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference. Paper presented at 15th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics (ISSI) on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Bogazici Univ, Istanbul, Turkey, June 29-July 4, 2015 (pp. 577-583). International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Does Quantity Make a Difference?
2015 (English)In: Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics , 2015, p. 577-583Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Do highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers? Or does the increased productivity in science only result in a sea of irrelevant papers as a perverse effect of competition and the increased use of indicators for research evaluation and accountability focus? We use a Swedish author disambiguated dataset consisting of 48,000 researchers and their WoS-listed publications during the period of 2008-2011 with citations until 2014 to investigate the relation between productivity and production of highly cited papers. As the analysis shows, quantity does make a difference.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2015
Series
Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSN 2175-1935
National Category
Computer Sciences
Research subject
Computer Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-51943 (URN)000380499700081 ()978-975-518-381-7 (ISBN)
Conference
15th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics (ISSI) on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Bogazici Univ, Istanbul, Turkey, June 29-July 4, 2015
Available from: 2016-09-02 Created: 2016-09-02 Last updated: 2018-07-03Bibliographically approved
van den Besselaar, P. & Sandström, U. (2015). Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 826-838
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions
2015 (English)In: Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1751-1577, E-ISSN 1875-5879, Vol. 9, no 4, p. 826-838Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The main rationale behind career grants is helping top talent to develop into the next generation leading scientists. Does career grant competition result in the selection of the best young talents? In this paper we investigate whether the selected applicants are indeed performing at the expected excellent level something that is hardly investigated in the research literature.

We investigate the predictive validity of grant decision-making, using a sample of 260 early career grant applications in three social science fields. We measure output and impact of the applicants about ten years after the application to find out whether the selected researchers perform ex post better than the non-successful ones. Overall, we find that predictive validity is low to moderate when comparing grantees with all non-successful applicants. Comparing grantees with the best performing non-successful applicants, predictive validity is absent. This implies that the common belief that peers in selection panels are good in recognizing outstanding talents is incorrect. We also investigate the effects of the grants on careers and show that recipients of the grants do have a better career than the non-granted applicants. This makes the observed lack of predictive validity even more problematic.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2015
Keywords
Grant allocation, Predictive validity, Academic careers, Career grants, Gender differences
National Category
Information Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-47859 (URN)10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.011 (DOI)000367612600011 ()2-s2.0-84940823440 (Scopus ID)
Note

Funding Agencies:

European Research Council ERC 610706

Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation P12-1302:1

Available from: 2016-02-01 Created: 2016-02-01 Last updated: 2018-08-31Bibliographically approved
Sriwannawit, P. & Sandström, U. (2015). Large-scale bibliometric review of diffusion research. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1615-1645
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Large-scale bibliometric review of diffusion research
2015 (English)In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 102, no 2, p. 1615-1645Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Despite the fact that diffusion research has existed for more than a century, a quantitative review covering this subject in a broad and general context is still lacking. This article reviews diffusion research by providing an extensive bibliometric and clustering analysis. In total, we identified thirteen clusters comprising 6,811 publications over the period of 2002-2011, and thereby describe the characteristics of diffusion research in an extensive and general way based on quantitative bibliometric methods. The analysis reveals that diffusion research is highly interdisciplinary in character, involving several disciplines from ethnology to economics, with many overlapping research trails. The concluding section indicates that diffusion research seems to be data driven and relies heavily on solely empirical studies. Consequently, influential publications rely on empirical data that support and change theories in modest ways only. In this contribution, we propose a review method that produces a fairly good overview of the research area and which can be applied to any knowledge field to replace or complement the traditional literature review.

Keywords
Adoption, Cluster, Publication analysis, Quantitative, Technology transfer
National Category
Media and Communications
Research subject
Media and Communication Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-43234 (URN)10.1007/s11192-014-1448-7 (DOI)000348324000027 ()2-s2.0-84919618494 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2015-03-03 Created: 2015-03-03 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0003-1292-8239

Search in DiVA

Show all publications