Comparison of performance of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grants in the field of Brazilian production engineering

Picinin, Cláudia Tânia; Pilatti, Luiz Alberto; Kovaleski, João Luiz; Graeml, Alexandre Reis; Pedroso, Bruno

doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2070-7

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That is explained by the fact that their technological production goes beyond publications in journals, also encompassing activities such as registered patents and development of non-patented products, processes, or softwares, which focus on innovation and technological development, creating possibilities and interactions with firms and the society as a whole. The same result was found by Picinin et al (2016) in the field of Production Engineering during the 2007-2009 period, in which DT researchers present a larger technical production than PQ researchers. This characteristic of innovation has remained true in the field of Production Engineering over time.…”

Section: H0 Rejectedsupporting

confidence: 79%

Scientific Production of Researchers Recipiente of CNPq Productivity Grants in the Field of Production Engineering in the 2013-2016 period

Rubbo

Pedroso

Pinto

et al. 2021

RSD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work has the purpose of mapping the scientific production of researchers recipient of CNPq productivity grants in research (PQ) and productivity grants in technological development and innovative extension (DT), in the Production Engineering field, in the four-year period from 2013 to 2016. The information was extracted from the Lattes Platform, on which we obtained quantitative data about the individual scientific production of 190 researchers, through the software scripLattes v8.10. The data analysis was conducted through descriptive statistics, the Kolgomorov-Smirnov data normality test, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the Mann-Whitney test. The results show that 76% of the researchers compose the PQ grant category. Within the four-year period, among PQ researchers, 1B and 1A researchers had the best average of total published articles, with 19.42 and 15.75 articles per researcher, respectively. Among DT researchers, 1D and level 2 researchers had, in average, 21.5 and 12.57 published articles, respectively. PQ researchers maintain their production of scientific articles homogeneous at all Qualis levels. On the other hand, DT researchers present greater heterogeneity in their publications. It is possible to conclude that level 1 researchers do not focus on journals that present low Qualis ratings for the publication of their research. In contrast, level 2 researchers are less experienced and expect to publish in higher-level journals, but when their works are rejected, they start “betting” on journals of lesser quality.

show abstract

Section: H0 Rejectedsupporting

confidence: 79%

Scientific Production of Researchers Recipiente of CNPq Productivity Grants in the Field of Production Engineering in the 2013-2016 period

Rubbo

Pedroso

Pinto

et al. 2021

RSD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, these researchers comprise a highly significant segment of Brazilian scientific thinking. The importance of this group also can be observed in studies by Picinin et al (2016) and Rodrigues et al (2017). Therefore, the central aim of this research is to highlight the collaborative behavior of researchers in the analyzed fields and their similarities and dissimilarities, both in the context of Brazilian science, and in relation to the forms of clustering identified in international science research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields

Hilário

Grácio

2017

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study attempts to describe, in a comparative way, scientific collaboration and co-authoring activities and understanding of Brazilian researchers of productivity level 1 at the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq). In order to do so, a questionnaire was sent to the researchers of productivity level 1 at CNPq in the Mathematics, Dentistry and Information Science fields, with questions about scientific collaboration and co-authoring activities. We analyzed the scientific production of the researchers who answered the questionnaire and we have identified that 78% of the participants consider that scientific collaboration and co-authorship are different activities, and the potential and usual number of research collaborators is between 2 and 3 in Mathematics and Information Science, and between 5 and 6 collaborators in Dentistry. Differences among fields were pointed out by identifying main collaborators and co-authors. The reasons for collaborating vary according to the nature of the research, however, the percentages are high in these three areas: ''training of researchers and students'', ''desire to increase their own experience through the experience of others'' and ''increased productivity.'' From the analysis of the scientific production declared in their Lattes Curriculum, we have found that the average number of authors per publication in the field of Information Science is 2.2 authors, in Mathematics is 2.8 authors per publication, and in Dentistry the average is 5.3 authors per publication. We have concluded that scientific collaboration and co-authorship are terms assigned to different activities for the analyzed fields.

show abstract

“…Every organization that funds research wants to support science that makes a difference for the community. Therefore, quantifying the performance of individual scholars, departments, and institutions has become an essential part of decision-making in research policy, funding allocations, awarding of grants, faculty hiring, and claims for promotion 7,8 . In this context, the rationale of performance evaluation is that scientific budget should flow to individuals and institutions with a qualitatively high scientific output.…”

Section: Profile and Scientific Output Of Researchers Recipients Of Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profile and scientific output of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grant in the field of medicine

Martelli

Oliveira

Pinheiro

et al. 2019

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY BACKGROUND. This study aimed to evaluate the scientific production of researchers in the field of Medicine who receive a productivity grant from the CNPq. METHODS: The curriculum Lattes of 542 researchers with active grants from 2012 to 2014 were included in the analysis. Grants categories/levels were stratified into three groups according to the CNPq database (1A-B, 1C-D, and 2). RESULTS. There was a predominance of grants in category 2. During their academic career, Medicine researchers published 76512 articles, with a median of 119 articles per researcher (IQ, interquartile range, 77 to 174). Among the 76512 articles, 36584 (47.8%) were indexed in the Web of Science (WoS database). Researchers in Medicine were cited 643159 times in the WoS database, with a median of 754 citations (IQ, 356 to 1447). There were significant differences among the categories of grants concerning the number of citations in WoS (P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the number of times researchers were cited according to the specialty included in Medicine area. (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION. Strategies to improve the scientific output qualitatively possibly can be enhanced by the knowledge of the profile of researchers in the field of Medicine.

show abstract

Comparison of performance of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grants in the field of Brazilian production engineering

Cited by 13 publications

References 17 publications

Scientific Production of Researchers Recipiente of CNPq Productivity Grants in the Field of Production Engineering in the 2013-2016 period

Scientific Production of Researchers Recipiente of CNPq Productivity Grants in the Field of Production Engineering in the 2013-2016 period

Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields

Profile and scientific output of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grant in the field of medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About