The conundrum of research productivity: a study on sociologists in Italy

Casnici, Niccolò; Squazzoni, Flaminio

doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2606-5

Cited by 36 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Publications by authors from a single country remain more prevalent (90%). Internationalisation in research on higher education is significantly lower compared to internationalisation in the social sciences (Acedo et al, 2006; Akbaritabar et al, 2018). To reverse this trend, a stronger involvement of English‐speaking countries (especially the US, Australia and the UK), which are the most productive countries of higher education studies (Calma & Davies, 2017; Liu et al, 2019) seems crucial to build a more integrated and international community.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An internationalised Europe and regionally focused Americas: A network analysis of higher education studies

Barbato

2021

Euro J of Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study on which this article reports investigated the internationalisation of higher education studies by examining collaborations in the form of international coauthorships. We analyse how network-based mechanisms, related to structural relationship between authors (preferential attachment, i.e., higher tendency to collaborate among the most productive ones) and node level features (homophily, i.e., tendency to collaborate with similar others), affect higher education co-authorship networks. We build a bipartite co-authorship network based on 17,262 publications from 33 specialised higher education journals indexed in Scopus from 1996-2018. Scientific collaboration in higher education mainly occurs within national borders. We found that higher education is not an internationally oriented field of research, with around 90% single-country publications. A geographical divide was observed between the two largest communities (Europe, Asia and Oceania vs. the Americas) which was also reflected in the research themes addressed by these communities, structured around the known divide between (1) learning and teaching, and (2) policy-based studies. Preferential attachment was observed to be a network-based mechanism that contributes to drive the formation of new co-authorships. Similarly, homophily based on academic seniority and research productivity emergedThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An internationalised Europe and regionally focused Americas: A network analysis of higher education studies

Barbato

2021

Euro J of Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research and novelty had less importance. The research for new information drove somewhere specified for research expertise (Akbaritabar, et al, 2018;Creswell, 2003Creswell, , 2009. Published research material intensified noteworthy status in advanced education in society and all around the world.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation of Personal and Institutional Factors With Research Productivity Among University Teachers

Batool

Ahmad

Naz

2021

HSSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of the study: The purpose of the research was to explore the association of teachers’ particular and university factors to enhance research production. Methodology: The design of the research was correlational. It was descriptive and survey research. Teaching personnel of universities participated in this research. Teachers were selected from departments by stratified technique. The self-developed questionnaire related to variables was used for data collection. The relationship was explored by using Pearson r among variables of the study. Main Findings: It was found that different components of institutional elements research procedure of departments, job and compensation, and assets and helping material have a poor, however positive correlation with research profitability of teaching personnel. Applications of this study: The findings of the study are applicable in universities. The leadership may take steps for the improvement and promote research culture at a higher level. Novelty/Originality of this study: Personal and institutional factors of research productivity were explored in this study. This study determines that how both types of elements are crucial and affect the research productivity of teachers.

show abstract

“…A number of authors have provided thoughtful reviews of the limitations of bibliometric analyses (Texeira da Silva and Dobránszki 2018 ; Costas and Franssen 2018 ). These limitations include biases of bibliometric comparisons across fields or countries (Gingras and Khelfaoui 2018 ); a tendency to favor older researchers with more experience (Kwiek 2018 ) or wider networks (Ronda-Pupo and Katz 2018 ; Akbaritabar et al 2018 ); political motivations (Kostoff 1998 ); and a susceptibility to bias, such as self-citations (Thelwall 2018 ; Drew et al 2016 ). The as yet unresolved problems of multiple co-authorship (Bao and Zhai 2017 ; Ronda-Pupo and Katz 2018 ), and the fact that the annual publication capacity of top journals measured in pages varies widely across fields of science could also be mentioned in this respect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Momentum program launched in 2009 provides funding of up to 1 million Euro to establish new, independent research groups at Hungarian academic institutions. Here, our aim was to determine factors associated with the scientific output of these research groups. Publication data were downloaded from the Hungarian Scientific Work Archive (www.mtmt.hu), impact factor data were obtained from Thomson Reuters (jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com), and journal ranks were extracted from the Scimago Journal Rank database (www.scimagojr.com). Investigated input features for each grant holder include gender, degree, targeted category, international mobility, international grants, number of publications, total number of citations, H-index, best publications, impact factors in the last 2 years, and assessment scores provided by the experts. Evaluated performance indicators include cumulative impact factor, number of D1 publications, and number of first/last author D1 publications during the grant running time. Grant holders’ publication output increased by 23 and 52% for life sciences and material sciences researchers. Scientific performance was independent from gender, degree, international grants, category applied for, and citations received for the best pre-grant publication. Those with international mobility had significantly lower scientific output (yearly impact factor, number of D1 publications, number of first/last author publications). Scores received from grant review experts were independent from later publication activity. The strongest correlations were observed between scientific output and total number of citations, H-index, and impact factor in the last 2 years pre-grant. In summary, group leaders with a dynamic publication track record were able to attain the most additional momentum. Our results can help accelerate and improve future grant review processes.

show abstract

The conundrum of research productivity: a study on sociologists in Italy

Cited by 36 publications

References 68 publications

An internationalised Europe and regionally focused Americas: A network analysis of higher education studies

An internationalised Europe and regionally focused Americas: A network analysis of higher education studies

Correlation of Personal and Institutional Factors With Research Productivity Among University Teachers

Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About