This paper maps the domain of earth and environmental sciences (EES) and investigates the relationship between cognitive problem structures and internationalisation patterns, drawing on the concepts of systemic versus cumulative global environmental change (GEC) and mutual task dependence in scientific fields. We find that scientific output concentration and internationalisation are significantly higher in the systemic GEC fields of Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography than in the cumulative GEC fields Ecology and Water Resources. The relationship is explained by stronger mutual task dependence in systemic GEC fields. In contrast, the portion of co-authorships with developing, emerging and transition countries among all international publications is larger for Water Resources than for the three other fields, consistent with the most pressing needs for STI capacity development in these countries

The use of bibliometric measures in the evaluation of research has increased considerably based on expertise from the growing research field of evaluative citation analysis (ECA). However, mounting criticism of such metrics suggests that the professionalization of bibliometric expertise remains contested. This paper investigates why impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor and the h-index, proliferate even though their legitimacy as a means of professional research assessment is questioned. Our analysis is informed by two relevant sociological theories: Andrew Abbott’s theory of professions and Richard Whitley’s theory of scientific work. These complementary concepts are connected in order to demonstrate that ECA has failed so far to provide scientific authority for professional research assessment. This argument is based on an empirical investigation of the extent of reputational control in the relevant research area. Using three measures of reputational control that are computed from longitudinal inter-organizational networks in ECA (1972–2016), we show that peripheral and isolated actors contribute the same number of novel bibliometric indicators as central actors. In addition, the share of newcomers to the academic sector has remained high. These findings demonstrate that recent methodological debates in ECA have not been accompanied by the formation of an intellectual field in the sociological sense of a reputational organization. Therefore, we conclude that a growing gap exists between an academic sector with little capacity for collective action and increasing demand for routine performance assessment by research organizations and funding agencies. This gap has been filled by database providers. By selecting and distributing research metrics, these commercial providers have gained a powerful role in defining de-facto standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority.

Despite growing demand for practicable methods of research evaluation, the use of bibliometric indicators remains controversial. This paper examines performance assessment practice in Europe-first, identifying the most commonly used bibliometric methods and, second, identifying the actors who have defined widespread practices. The framework of this investigation is Abbott's theory of professions, and I argue that indicator-based research assessment constitutes a potential jurisdiction for both individual experts and expert organizations. This investigation was conducted using a search methodology that yielded 138 evaluation studies from 21 EU countries, covering the period 2005 to 2019. Structured content analysis revealed the following findings: (1) Bibliometric research assessment is most frequently performed in the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom. (2) The Web of Science (WoS) is the dominant database used for public research assessment in Europe. (3) Expert organizations invest in the improvement of WoS citation data, and set technical standards with regards to data quality. (4) Citation impact is most frequently assessed with reference to international scientific fields. (5) The WoS classification of science fields retained its function as a de facto reference standard for research performance assessment. A detailed comparison of assessment practices between five dedicated organizations and other individual bibliometric experts suggests that corporate ownership and limited access to the most widely used citation databases have had a restraining effect on the development and diffusion of professional bibliometric methods during this period.

Based on the entire population of Nobel laureates in science from 1901 to 2017, we show that North America’s rise as global power in science started in the 1920s. Following a transition period (1940s to 1960s), its scientific hegemony was consolidated in the 1970s. Yet since the 2000s, North America’s global leadership in science has come under pressure. In that time, its share of laureates across disciplines dropped, although it has retained its attractiveness as a destination for future laureates from Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, we find that North America has become apparently less effective since 2010 in transferring capacities for conducting ground-breaking research from one generation of scientists to another. Furthermore, both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region have similarly high shares of newcomer organizations with regard to where prize-winning work is conducted, indicating that these two regions are very active in the inter-organizational competition for scientific talent. Despite this competition, however, we find no support for the rise of a new global center of science.

The paper examines the characteristics and performance of regional innovation systems in 12 new member states of the European Union. More specifically, it develops a typology that differentiates their various potentials as innovative regions. Based on a principal component analysis, five different groups of regions are identified. The characteristic profile of each group is detailed and exploration of possible paths of innovation-based regional development is presented for each type of region. The paper concludes with an examination of policy implications emerging from the analysis.

This paper investigates the factors that support building capacity in global environmental change research. We compare two major international collaboration programs in Earth and environmental sciences, the International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP) and the International Hydrological Program (IHP). High mutual dependence, a positive international scientific reputation, and bottom-up funding structure explain the IGBP's capability to effectively organize international collaboration; low mutual dependence, intergovernmental decision structures, and organizational barriers to growth hinder effective capacity building by the IHP. We conclude that future collaboration programs focusing on cumulative global change research should consider the relative strengths of both collaboration models.

This paper argues that quantitative science studies should frame their data and analyses with middle-range sociological theories and concepts. We illustrate this argument with reference to the “sociology of professions,” a middle-range theoretical framework developed by Chicago sociologist Andrew Abbott. Using this framework, we counter the claim that the use of bibliometric indicators in research assessment is pervasive in all advanced economies. Rather, our comparison between the Netherlands and Italy reveals major differences in the national design of bibliometric research assessment: The Netherlands follows a model of bibliometric professionalism, whereas Italy follows a centralized bureaucratic model that co-opts academic elites. We conclude that applying the sociology of professions framework to a broader set of countries would beworthwhile, allowing the emerging bibliometric profession to be charted in a comprehensive, and preferably quantitative, fashion. We also briefly discuss other sociological middle-range concepts that could potentially guide empirical analyses in quantitative science studies.

The graph for S4 Fig is incorrect and the legends for S4-S6 Figs are incorrect. Please see the corrected S4-S6 Figs below. Supporting information S4 Fig. Master-apprentice relations in Chemistry (North America). Master-apprentice relations among Nobel laureates in Chemistry (North America). Underlined names are from other regions.