The timeline of new document entries in my repository @ Mendeley on Research Management in Management Research (RMIMR)
Created by wmijnhardt on 06/01/2011
Last updated: 06/01/11 at 14:12
Economica (2006). L.E. Weber, J.J. Duderstadt et al.The Glion Colloquia were begun in 1998 to bring together university leaders from Europe and North America to compare perspectives concerning the challenges and opportunities facing higher education. These meetings have usually been held in Glion, near Montreux, Switzerland, although the second meeting in 2000 was held in La Jolla, California. Each meeting has had a particular theme, such as the global forces driving change in higher education, university governance, the interaction between universities and society, and the rapidly changing nature of research universities. The fifth Glion Colloquium, held from June 18 to 21, 2005, in Switzerland, concerned the key relationship between research universities and the business sector. Participants included university leaders from Europe and the United States, along with senior officers of several global corporations, including Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Nestlé, Hoffman-La Roche, Daimler Chrysler, the Fraunhofer Institutes, and the Bank of England. The emergence of a global, knowledge-driven economy has created an ever-greater dependence of society, business and industry on research universities for advanced education (particularly in science and engineering), research and development, innovation and entrepreneurial activities. From San Diego to Dublin, Helsinki to Shanghai, there is a growing recognition throughout the world that economic prosperity and social well-being in a global, knowledge-driven economy require significant public and private investment in knowledge resources such as universities and corporate R & D laboratories, as well as strong relationships between business and higher education. The Glion V meeting began with an overview of the impact of the global knowledge economy on business, higher education, and government policies in Europe and the United States (Weber, Duderstadt, Newby and Frost, Gourley and Brennan, and Van Vught). Participants discussed the efforts of the European Community to develop a framework to position Europe for the knowledge economy through major strategies such as the Lisbon agenda, including efforts to better integrate learning and research among European universities through the Bologna process and the European Research Area. This was contrasted with the long-standing partnership in the United States among government, universities and business, although it was also acknowledged that there were numerous worrisome trends including the decline in federal research funding in the physical sciences and engineering, the erosion of basic research activities in industry, and the waning student interest in science and engineering careers that concerned U.S. participants. Yet, while the importance of universities to the knowledge economy was a primary focus of the Glion V meeting, participants were reminded of the broader public purpose of higher education that sometimes did not align well with a market orientation. Subsequent sessions of the meeting concerned the differing perspectives on the relationship between universities and business, contrasting the views of business and university leaders, as well as those of participants from Europe and the United States. The first of these sessions concerned the changing nature of knowledge transfer from the campus to industry (Andersson, A. Jones, Johnson, Brody, Tsichritzis and Kreysel), noting the differences among the physical sciences, biomedical sciences, and engineering. Here there was considerable discussion of changing paradigms of technology transfer, driven by the growing importance of both innovation and entrepreneurial activities, as well as by the changing nature of the faculty and the needs of the business community. The sessions concerned with the European perspective on university-business relationships (Lebret, Manson and Aebischer, Harryson and Lorange, Lambert, Soboll and Mueller) and the American experience (Fox, Faulkner, Johnson, Connelly) had similar themes. Several business leaders expressed the increasing frustration of industry about the complex negotiations involving intellectual property rights, although they also noted the growing dependence of industry on university basic research as financial pressures shifted corporate R & D more towards product development. Both business and university leaders stressed the need for a more strategic approach to these relationships — less as a philanthropic relationship in which industry provides financial support to universities, and more in the form of a strategic alliance, much as would exist between industrial partners. There was one particularly notable difference between the European and American perspectives from university leaders. While European leaders tended to give most attention to the interaction between universities and large companies, the American universities, drawing from the successful efforts in high-tech economic development in regions such as Silicon Valley, Boston, Austin, and San Diego, tended to place a premium on technology transfer through the start-up of new companies spinning off from campus research activities. In a sense, several of the American university leaders suggested that their universities could serve society best by creating new companies and new industry, rather than serving established companies. Since the ownership of intellectual property was critical to attracting the investment capital necessary for the start-up of these new companies, it was understandable that American universities have become more tenacious in the negotiation of intellectual property rights. The final session of the Glion V meeting focused on the increasing concerns about human capital, particularly in key areas of science and engineering (Winckler and Fieder, Johnson and Jones, Wulf and Vest). A combination of waning student interest in such careers, coupled with restrictions on immigration in the wake of the terrorist attacks in September 2001, posed the possibility of significant shortfalls in the availability of scientists and engineers in the United States. While this was not yet considered a serious problem in Europe, the rapid emergence of large science and engineering workforces in developing nations such as India and China posed a considerable threat to economic competitiveness in a technology-driven knowledge economy. As in earlier Glion V meetings, the opportunity to compare the differing perspectives of university leaders from Europe and the United States proved both stimulating and valuable in considering the evolution of these important social institutions. Business leaders provided particularly valuable insight as to how the university could best serve society in an ever more competitive global knowledge economy. Academic leaders acknowledged, in turn, that significant changes were necessary in the structure of the university to facilitate these important partnerships. This book includes both the papers presented in the conference, as well as a summary of the discussions at the various working sessions and the text of the dinner talk given to the participants by Peter Brabeck-Lamarthe, CEO and President of Nestlé.Published using Mendeley: The research tool for desktop & web
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3935550672/g/498211/weber-2006-universities-and-business-partnering-for-the-knowledge-society/
Pages: 49-50. J A Bikker et al.top 100 of dutch economists publishing in local journalsPublished using Mendeley: The reference manager for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3935550692/g/498211/bikker-2010-polderparade-top-100-annex-with-complete-list/
Technovation (2010). Pages: 1-10. Zelimir William Todorovic, Rod B. McNaughton, Paul Guild et al.Published using Mendeley: The reference manager for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3935550712/g/498211/william-todorovic-2010-entre-u-an-entrepreneurial-orientation-scale-for-universities/
Economica Ltd (2010). L.E. Weber, J.J. Duderstadt et al.In June 2009, university and industry leaders from around the world gathered in Glion-above-Montreux, Switzerland, for the VII Glion Colloquium to consider the role of research universities in an innovation-driven global society. Whether in the “old world” of Europe and North America or in rapidly developing nations, the message is clear: innovation has become the key to prosperity and social well-being. Today’s economy requires not only leadership in innovation, but also educated citizens capable of applying technology, talent and capital in new ways. Institutions of higher learning must collaborate with industry and government to create a climate that enables innovation to thrive. Part of the challenge is the changing nature of innovation itself – it is becoming far more open, spans virtually all disciplines and is increasingly global. And it arises not only in the laboratory and classroom, but also in the marketplace, workplace and community. Part I lays the foundation, introducing innovation in several forms: economic (Luc Weber), technological (Charles Vest) and social (Ellen Hazelkorn). Part II is concerned with the agents of innovation from the points of view of a research university (Jean-Lou Chameau), industry (Wayne Johnson) and national innovation policies (Frans Van Vught and David Dill). Part III presents university leaders from long-established (Georg Winckler, Ralph Eichler and Heather Munroe-Blum) and emerging institutions (Bertil Andersson et al, Fawwaz Ulaby, Arif Al-Hammadi et al, and Juan de la Fuente) to compare how regional and institutional characteristics shape innovation strategies. Part IV focuses on approaches to innovation at national and institutional levels. Michael Crow describes the transformation of Arizona State University, Bernd Huber reviews Germany’s excellent initiative, James Duderstadt discusses a U.S. approach to energy challenges, Michel Bénard describes the shift of high-tech industry towards open innovation and Jamil Salmi concludes with the challenges of creating world-class universities. Part V addresses the intellectual character of innovation and its relationship to the university’s mission. Nam Suh proposes an innovation model, Dieter Lenzen returns to Humboldt’s ideas in creating the 19th-century research university, and Gururaj Deshpande demonstrates how innovative organizations could be created in different environments. John Seely Brown suggests that the power of ICT, coupled with new social networking, is driving an epistemological shift. Frank Rhodes reviews the past decade spanned by the Glion Colloquia and helps draft a new Glion Declaration.Published using Mendeley: The bibliography manager for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3935550702/g/498211/weber-2010-university-research-for-innovation/
Tijdschrift voor Politieke Ekonomie (2010). Volume: 4, Issue: 4. Pages: 106-116. Emiel Maasland et al.Net zoals de afgelopen jaren is de hoogste notering voor Lans Boven- berg (Universiteit van Tilburg en directeur Netspar). Collega- Tilburgenaar Eric van Damme (CentER en TILEC) staat op twee. De plaatsen drie tot en met vijf worden ingenomen door CPB’ers: Coen Teulings, Casper van Ewijk en Ruud de Mooij. Hoogste nieuwkomer dit jaar is Willem Buiter (Chief Economist bij Citigroup). Beste jongere (< 40 jaar) is Bas Jacobs (EUR/CPB). De CPB’ers zijn het best vertegen- woordigd in de lijst. Voor de Polderparade worden de citaties van hedendaagse Nederlandse en Belgische economen in de volgende tijdschriften geteld: Economisch Sta- tistische Berichten, De Economist, Financiële en Monetaire Studies3, Kwartaalschrift Economie, Tijdschrift voor Openbare Financiën, Tijdschrift voor Politieke Ekonomie/TPEdigitaal en de Preadviezen van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor de Staathuishoudkunde. Bij meerdere auteurs krijgt iedere auteur dezelfde fractie van een citatie toebedeeld. Verwijzingen naar artikelen in bundels leveren alleen punten aan de auteurs van de arti- kelen en niet aan de redacteurs van de bundel. Als er naar de hele bundel wordt verwezen, dan krijgen de redacteurs wel punten. Citaties uit biografi- sche artikelen, zelfcitaties en citaties uit artikelen waarbij de naam van de auteur ontbreekt, worden niet meegeteld.Published using Mendeley: The digital library for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3935550682/g/498211/maasland-2010-polderparade-2010/
Economica (2004). L.E. Weber, J.J. Duderstadt et al.The Glion Colloquium, founded in 1997, assembles a group of higher education leaders from the United States and Western Europe, some still in office and some recently retired, whose shared endeavors in the Colloquium are without personal consideration of any kind. The objective is to define, advance, and disseminate knowledge about major issues facing research universities in the United States and in Western Europe. The Glion Colloquium is unique in its composition and in its exceptional depth of experience and broad knowledge of these issues. At its first meeting in 1998, members of the Glion Colloquium identified some major challenges facing universities in the age of the information technology and communication revolution. One of these challenges is to set up new intellectual alliances within the university and new partnerships outside it. The third Colloquium, which took place from May 30 to June 3, 2001 in Glion, Switzerland, had as its topic As the Walls of Academia Are Tumbling Down. The Colloquium observed that increasing external permeability of the university is both complemented by and made more complex by increasing internal permeability. More research and teaching cross the boundaries of conventional disciplines, while creating and imparting knowledge at their intersection. Contributions examined the various ways in which universities, especially research universities, cooperate with industry and the commercial sector generally, including but not limited to sponsored research, intellectual property, and new technologies as they affect traditional and new types of learners. The papers in this volume are an output of the Colloquium. They have been supplemented by commissioned papers, prepared by Peter Lorange, Frank H. T. Rhodes, J. William Schopf and Werner Z. Hirsch, Ulrich W. Suter and Matthias Erzinger, Leslie Wagner, Harold M. Williams and Mary L. Walshok. The book has four parts. An Overview—Universities and the Global Village—is followed by Part I, comprising five papers that examine The New 21st Century Environment and its Implications for Universities. In Part II, two papers address the Lowering of Walls Inside the University. In Part III, five papers investigate The Lowering of External Walls of Universities. Finally, Part IV explores The Future of University Partnerships. We thank, in the USA, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and, in Europe, the Swiss Federal Agency for Education and Science in Bern, The Avina Foundation in Basel, The Foundation San Paolo Di Torino in Italy, The Leenaards Foundation in Lausanne and the research universities in the French-speaking part of Switzerland for their generous financial support. Finally, we are particularly pleased to thank warmly Mrs. Mary O’Mahony, former Deputy Secretary General of the late Association of European Universities, who provided advice and editorial assistance.Published using Mendeley: Academic software for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3935550662/g/498211/weber-2004-reinventing-the-research-university/
Pages: 1-39. S. Cozzens, M. Snoek et al.The missions of many U.S. federal agencies include building the knowledge base for policy making. For example, the research programs of the Environmental Protection Agency inform its regulatory function; the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health provides the evidence base for safety standards in the workplace; and educational research affects educational policy as well as educational practice. Policy impacts are also important, however, for agencies with broader research missions when they want to measure the uptake of their research results in the policy process, for example, the use of environmental knowledge in climate change policy or the influence of biomedical research findings on public health standards. In general, measuring non‐economic outcomes of research has been considered particularly difficult. Cozzens and her co‐authors (Cozzens and Bortagaray 2002) have argued that the difficulty lies not in a lack of outcome measures – plenty of measures of human and environmental health exist, for example – but rather in under‐development of models of the processes that lie between research and the measured outcomes. “Intermediate” outcomes have been adopted in several recent evaluations as short‐term, relatively observable proxies for long‐term changes to which the research program aims to contribute (Committee on Evaluating the Efficiency of Research and Development Programs at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008; Institute‐of‐Medicine 2009). Providing inputs to policy processes is one important example of such intermediate outcomes. So for example, occupational safety research must assure that its results are disseminated to the regulatory bodies that set occupational safety standards. One can “measure” whether this happened by asking the intended recipient or by checking for references in the relevant regulatory document. Intermediate outcomes like these are linked to but do not determine long‐term outcomes, since research results are almost never the only influence on the ultimate policy decisions, and the policy decisions are in turn only one influence on actual health and safety in the workplace.Published using Mendeley: The library management tool for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3935550652/g/498211/cozzens-2010-knowledge-to-policy-contributing-to-the-measurement-of-social-health-and-environmental-benefits/
Sciecom Info (2010). Pages: 1-4. Claus Vesterager Pedersen et al.In June 2009 a political agreement on a new model for the distribution of basic funding for Danish universities was entered into, with a gradual implementation from 2010-2012. This agreement states that the universities’ research publications will be the second most important parameter for the distribution of new basic funding for universities in Denmark based on outcome (“weights and measures”). New basic funding means funding from the so-called Globalisation funds, that released 300 million Danish kroner to universities in 2010 and 270 million Danish kroner to universities in 2011.Published using Mendeley: The research paper manager
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500112/g/498211/pedersen-2010-the-danish-bibliometric-research-indicator--bfi-research-publications--research-assessment--university-funding/
Scientometrics (2010). Claire Creaser, Charles Oppenheim, Mark A. C. Summers et al.This study used a bibliometric method to find quantitative evidence of publi- cation and citing patterns within UK academia. The publications of a random sample of UK research—active academics for each of the years 2003 and 2008—were collected and analysed to gather data regarding referencing practices, along with any identifiable trends between the 2 years. References were categorised by type of material to show the pro- portions of each type used. Comparisons between the 2 years showed that the use of journal articles had increased. There was also an increase in the average number of publications per author. A large number of authors had no publications in the target years.Published using Mendeley: The library management tool for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500082/g/498211/creaser-2010-what-do-uk-academics-cite-an-analysis-of-references-cited-in-uk-scholarly-outputs/
Journal of Business Research (2010). Maggie Geuens et al.This essay focuses on some of the adverse practices in business research publications. First, business researchers seem to have lost touch with business practice and to narrow the target group to fellow academics only, reducing the production of useful knowledge. Second, the objectives of business research publications narrow to impact and citations. This view leads to a strict focus on path-breaking theories and a denigration of replication and qualitative studies. Third, an obsession with the .05 significance level and corroborating findings leaves researchers with full file drawers of unpublished papers and could leave journals with a high rate of type I error papers. Fourth, complex, lengthy articles, the importance of carefully crafting a story around the research and a variety of style guidelines make business researchers less productive than they could be. Finally, a blind reliance on ISI's impact and citation scores may not do justice to a researcher's real contribution. ©Published using Mendeley: The bibliography manager for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500132/g/498211/geuens-2010-where-does-business-research-go-from-here-food-for-thought-on-academic-papers-in-business-research/
Pages: 1-87. G. Schulze, S. Warning, X Wiermann et al.Notes: VHBR_IMP WIEN_IMP RbR_IMP CL_IMP NonEL EL2003 This ranking is based on Schulze/Warning/Wiermann (2008): Zeitschriftenrankings für die Wirtschaftswissenschaften – Konstruktion eines umfassenden Metaindexes, University of Freiburg iep working paper no. 3, at http://www.vwl.uni‐freiburg.de/fakultaet/sopo/discussion_papers.htm. VHB_IMP: Imputed index based on the ranking by the Verband der Deutschen Hochschullehrer at http://pbwi2www.uni‐paderborn.de/WWW/VHB/VHB‐Online.nsf/id/88073FF9B3B52 WIEN_IMP: Imputed index based on the ranking by the Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien at http://bach.wu‐wien.ac.at/bachapp/cgi‐bin/fides/fides.aspx/fides.aspx?journal=true;lang=DE RbR_IMP: Imputed index based on the ranking by Ritzberger, K. (2008): Eine invariante Bewertung wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften, Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik , forthcoming. CL_IMP: Imputed index based on the ranking by Combes, P. und L. Linnemer (2003): Where are the economists who publish? Publication concentration and rankings in Europe based on cumulative publications, Journal of the European Economic Association, 1: 1250‐1308. All rankings are described in detail in Schulze/Warning/Wiermann (2008). NonEL: In 2006 not in Econlit. EL2003: Since 2003 in Econlit. Classification in VHB_IMP from 6 to 1 refers to original journal classification A+, A, B, C, D, E; classification 5 ‐ 1 in Wien_IMP refers to original journal classification A+, A, B, C, D; Classification 6 ‐ 1 in Ritzberger (2008) refers to rankings A+, A, B+, B, C+, C; CL_IMPPublished using Mendeley: The reference manager for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500092/g/498211/schulze-2008-journal-ranking-for-busienss-and-economics-four-metaindices/
Pages: 1-31. Matthias Krapf et al.Research evaluations based on quality weighted publication output are often criticized on account of the employed journal quality weights. This study shows that evaluations of entire research organizations are very robust with respect to the choice of readily available weighting schemes. We document this robustness by applying rather different weighting schemes to otherwise identical rankings. Our unit of analysis consists of German, Austrian and Swiss university departments in business administration and economics.Published using Mendeley: Academic software for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500072/g/498211/krapf-2010-research-evaluation-and-journal-quality-weights--much-ado-about-nothing/
Pages: 1-16. Economic Journal, Economic Behavior, Economic Statistics et al.Published using Mendeley: The research paper manager
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500102/g/498211/journal-2009-die-handelsblatt-zeitschriftenliste-fur-die-volkswirtschaftslehre/
F. Van Der Most et al.This paper reviews the literature in research evaluation and in social program evaluation on the topic of use and effects of research evaluation. The past two or three decades have seen the emergence of several new forms of research evaluation next to the existing peer review practices on papers and project proposals. The UK Research Assessment Exercises are among the most studied and discussed ones. Many other types of evaluations have received some attention but when it comes to their use and effects, interest also quickly faded. It seems time to re-address the issue and see what can be learned from the existing literature for a study of use and effects. The paper also draws on literature from social program evaluation for additional insights since in this field the concern for use and effects is further developed. The most important insight gained is that use and effects of evaluations extend beyond those implied by policy-cycle perspectives and peer review. Furthermore, concepts and conceptual frames from the field of science and technology studies can be productive in the study of a wide range of use and effects, including the pressing issue of non-use.Published using Mendeley: Academic software for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500122/g/498211/van-der-most-2010-use-and-non-use-of-research-evaluation-a-literature-review/
Jenny Fry, Charles Oppenheim Dis, Claire Creaser, William Johnson, Mark Summers, Sonya White Lisu, Geoff Butters, Jenny Craven, Jill Griffiths, Dick Hartley Cerlim et al.Methods • Two years’ data were selected for analysis, from separate research assessment periods – 2003 and 2008 • Two samples of authors were drawn from RAE submissions for 2001 and 2008, and lists obtained of their published research outputs in 2003 and 2008 respectively • Between 40% and 50% of authors sampled for each year had no identifiable research outputs in the relevant year • • Outputs identified were examined, and their references categorised and counted A total of 1,452 works from 484 authors were included in the analysis Key findings Dissemination practice • • • • There were significantly more outputs per author in 2008 than in 2003, particularly in Biomedicine, and social sciences There were significantly more journal articles, and fewer monographs, in 2008 than in 2003 There were significantly more multi-authored works in 2008 than in 2003, particularly in social sciences and physical sciences There were significantly more inter-institutional collaborations, and more international collaborations, in 2008 than in 2003 Citation practice • There was no difference in the average number of citations per output between 2003 and 2008 overall • There were significant differences between disciplines in the numbers of citations per publication – humanities cite the greatest number of works on average; engineering the fewest • Monographs had an average of over 230 references each, compared to 38 for journal articles and 47 for book chapters • • • • • Significantly more journal articles, and fewer books and grey literature works were cited in 2008 than in 2003 Biomedicine, physical sciences and social sciences cite twice as many articles per publication as other disciplines Humanities, and, to a lesser extent, social sciences and education, cite more books per output on average than other disciplines Social sciences, and, to a lesser extent, education, cite more grey literature per output on average than other disciplines Social sciences, education and humanities cite more websites than Biomedicine, physical sciences or engineering • Books and book chapters are most likely to cite books/book chapters • Conference outputs are most likely to be cited in conference proceedingsPublished using Mendeley: Academic software for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500042/g/498211/fry-2009-communicating-knowledge--how-and-why-researchers-publish-and-disseminate-their-findings-supporting-paper-1-bibliometric-analysis/
Jenny Fry, Charles Oppenheim Dis, Claire Creaser, William Johnson, Mark Summers, Sonya White Lisu, Geoff Butters, Jenny Craven, Jill Griffiths, Dick Hartley Cerlim et al.This study was commissioned by the Research Information Network, in collaboration with the JISC, in December 2008, to gather and analyse evidence about the motivations, incentives and constraints that lead researchers in the UK in different subjects and disciplines to publish, disseminate and cite their work in different ways. The following key issues were investigated, covering three broad areas: 1. Publication and dissemination behaviour: 2. Citation behaviour: 3. The perceived influence of research assessment (past and anticipated): Methodology Four complementary methodologies were used: literature review, bibliometric analysis, focus groups, and a survey. This mixed method approach has been used to help ensure a holistic view is provided of the publication, dissemination and citation behaviour of researchers across subject disciplines. This report provides findings of data collected from the focus groups and interviews. Having sampled at the coarse-grained level of broad disciplinary groupings (that is, the HESA and RAE 2001 categories), as a way of coordinating sampling across the three methods, we have used Whitley’s (2000) organizational theory of disciplines to sample within these broad disciplinary groupings. Thus, the coarse grain disciplinary groups investigated were Physical Science, Medical Science, Engineering, Humanities, Social Sciences and the Arts. Key findings The following were identified as key issues emerging from the focus group and interview participants: • o Predominance of journal articles: • There was an almost universal view that there is an expectation and, in some cases, a pressure for scholars to normalise their work into a peer-reviewed journal article o Increase in collaboration: • Participants felt that there was an increased pressure to collaborate on research, within discipline and across discipline and across institution – including international collaboration. • Participants thought that people would start increasing the number of citations ‘in a spirit of generosity’. • Citation circles were mentioned as a form of collaboration to increase citation counts, and this was viewed in a negative way. o Intellectual autonomy • Intellectual autonomy was raised as an important issue by many participants. • Concerns arose from conflicts in writing outputs to reach the target audience and conforming to the institutional view of RAE submissable outputs. • Participants viewed conferences and workshops as important to certain disciplines due to the speed with which research can be disseminated, but not viewed highly in terms of the RAE. • There were also concerns that research outputs are changing, with less emphasis on monographs. • Some participants acknowledged that journal editors influence scholarly freedom. • Research assessment was also identified as a potential threat to intellectual honesty. o How impact and quality are measured • The impact factor of journals formed a significant part of discussions with many participants. • Participants felt frustrated that impact was measured in such a narrow way. • In relation to citation, participants felt that impact is usually measured by citing outputs in high impact peer reviewed journals. o What scholars view as important vs. outputs submitted to research assessment • The range of output types discussed by participants as important to individual scholars and to their research communities was markedly more diverse than those perceived to be important to their institutions for submission to the RAE – where there was a predominance of the peer-reviewed journal article. • Some participants also identified that there was a tension between outputs deemed to be important to them as individual scholars and requirements placed on them by their institution as a result of influence from research assessment.Published using Mendeley: The research paper manager
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500052/g/498211/fry-2009-communicating-knowledge--how-and-why-researchers-publish-and-disseminate-their-findings-supporting-paper-2-report-of-focus-groups-findings/
Jenny Fry, Charles Oppenheim Dis, Claire Creaser, William Johnson, Mark Summers, Sonya White Lisu, Geoff Butters, Jenny Craven, Jill Griffiths, Dick Hartley Cerlim et al.An online survey of UK academic researchers was conducted over six weeks in March to May 2009. Over 800 useable responses were received, and the following key points emerged from the analysis: Publication and dissemination behaviour • • Peer reviewed journals are seen as the most important form of research dissemination overall, with 94% of respondents rating them as ‘very important’ and 6% as ‘quite important’. Conference presentations are rated as ‘very important’ or ‘quite important’ by 86% of respondents overall, book chapters by 83%, and monographs by 59%. There are notable disciplinary differences in the relative importance of professional journals, monographs, reports, datasets and open access repositories. • The key influences in the choice of means of dissemination are career advancement, maximising the dissemination and research assessment requirements. The relative importance of these varies by output type and discipline. • There are also differences by career stage in what influences this choice. • The means of ordering authors in collaborative outputs was very varied, and differs by discipline. Most disciplines registered high use of several methods, suggesting that there are also differences between fine-grained subjects within the broader discipline areas. Citation behaviour • The highest motivations for citing material are its known authority, and the requirement to reference an original method/theory/argument. • • There were few differences in citation behaviour by discipline, but more by career stage. Early career researchers were more likely to record high levels of influences of various kinds than were more experienced researchers. Training in citation practice was not widespread. • Early career researchers were more likely to have received guidance on citation, especially from their institution. • Guidance most often came from reviewers, and this was seen as both positive (pointing out material which had been missed) and negative (suggesting citing the reviewer and/or works from the journal). Co-authors were also an important source of citation guidance. Research Assessment • The RAE is thought to have had an impact on dissemination practice, with comments suggesting that this was broadly thought to be detrimental. • Most information on research assessment came from the institution, with less than half the respondents obtaining information from funders’ websites. This may be a contributory factor in the apparently common misconception that the only outputs acceptable to the RAE were high impact journal articles. A significant minority of respondents thought that the RAE rules excluded important research outputs. • The proposed Research Excellence Framework, as it is understood by researchers, is expected to influence both dissemination and citation behaviours. • Nearly one quarter of respondents would produce more outputs, and one third would increase their submission rate to quality outlets. Forty-two percent would make more outputs available on open access. • Nearly 40% of respondents would cite collaborators’ work more often. Although few would change the frequency with which they cited competitors’ work.Published using Mendeley: The library management tool for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/c/3911500062/g/498211/fry-2009-communicating-knowledge--how-and-why-researchers-publish-and-disseminate-their-findings-supporting-paper-3-report-and-analysis-of-researcher-survey/
Landbouw en Innovatie Ministerie van Economie et al.Published using Mendeley: The reference manager for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/research/van-kp7-naar-kp8-raportage-van-bevindingen-van-nl-inzetbepaling-tbv-kp8-van-europese-unie-voor-onderzoek-en-technologische-ontwikkleing/
John Mingers, Frederico Macri, Dan Petrovici et al.This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal’s research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School’s peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data – the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.Published using Mendeley: The bibliography manager for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/research/using-hindex-measure-quality-journals-field-business-management/
Christy M K Cheung, Bo Xiao et al.This paper employs citation analysis to investigate empirically the influence of MIS Quarterly on both IS and other literature. Specifically, we examine the impact of source article category, method type, and research area on article citation rates. Our results reveal that the citation-based quality indices of MISQ have been improving over the years. In addition, among the six categories of MISQ source articles, the methodological articles on average receive the most citings per article. Moreover, of the source articles employing different research methods, surveys, case studies, and lab experiments are more likely to be cited. Among source articles addressing different research areas, those focusing on IT and individuals receive the most citings per article. Finally, our analysis also shows that MISQ articles are well-cited by researchers from both IS and other disciplines, implying that IS does make knowledge contribution to other disciplinesPublished using Mendeley: Academic software for researchers
http://www.mendeley.com/research/assessing-quality-knowledge-contribution-mis-quarterly-citation-analysis/
Update Sources