Determinants of research productivity

Scientometrics

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 309-329

  Ramesh Babu, A ^a   Singh, Y P ^a  

^a INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039263674     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02457402     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. A. TURKELI, The doctoral training environment and post-doctorate productivity among Turkish physicists, Science Studies, 3 (1973) 311-318.
2. I. HIRSCH, W. MITWITT, J. W. OAKES, Increasing the productivity of scientists, Harvard Business Review, 36 (1958) 66-76.
3. A. ROE, A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists, Psychological Monographs, 67 (1953) 2.
4. D. CRANE, Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition, American Sociological Review, 30 (1965) 699-713.
5. Y. P. SINGH, S. N. LAHARIA, Interpersonal communication and scientific productivity, Interaction, 4 (1986) 27-32.
6. E. J. ZAMARIPA, A critical path analysis of scientific productivity, Mental Retardation, 31 (1993) 320-325.
7. J. E. GREENE, 100 Great Scientists, New York: Pocket Books, Simon and Schuster Inc., 1969.
8. J. BLOCK, The Q-sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1961.
9. A. RAMESH BABU, Y. P. SINGH, Pusa rank sheet for Q-sort technique, Indian Journal of Extension Education, 20 (1984) 52-57.
10. A. L. COMREY, A first course in factor analysis, New York: Academic press, 1973.
11. T. F. GIERYN, R. P. HIRSH, Marginality and innovation in science, Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 87-106.
12. M. HELENA PYCIOR, Reaping the benefits of collaboration while avoiding its pitfalls: Marie Curie's rise to scientific performance, Social Studies of Science, 23 (1993) 301-323.
13. S. K. DE, Portrait of a scientist, Science Reporter, 9 (1972) 509-512.
14. SRICHANDRA, Scientists: A socio-psychological study, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 1970.
15. F. IRVINE, B. R. MARTIN, Basic research in the East and West: A comparison of the scientific performance of high-energy physics accelerators, Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 293-341.
16. G. G. HARRISON, D. G. WOODWORTH, Stylistic variations among professional research scientists, Journal of Psychology, 49 (1960) 87-98.
17. W. C. WARADANAM, Self help for third world scientists, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 33 (1977) 22-23.
18. J. P. WALSH, T. BAYMA, Computer networks and scientific work, Social Studies of Science, 26 (1996) 661-703.
19. D. A. BLANKINSHIP, D. M. EHLEN, A general survey of obtaining participants' evaluations of professional development sessions, Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 29 (1997) 17-25.
20. J. BALDERSTON, A performance and salary review system for scientists, Research Management, 1 (1964) 209-224.
21. J. A. CHAMBERS, Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity, Psychological Monographs, 78 (1964) 1-20.
22. J. FARIDI, The Hindustan Times - Sunday Magazine, New Delhi, 18 December, 1983, 1-2.
23. W. B. CARLSON, M. E. GORMAN, Understanding invention as a cognitive process: The case of Thomas Edison and early motion pictures (1888-91), Social Studies of Science, 20 (1990), 387-440.
24. M. L. ROONWAL, The true scientist: Criteria of excellence, Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 32 (1979) 665-667.
25. R. A. GRIGGS, S. E. RANSDELL, Scientists and the selection task, Social Studies of Science, 16 (1986) 319-330.
26. H. ZOLLINGER, Logic or psychology of scientific discovery, Chemistry in Britain, 16 (1980) 257-258.
27. S. SCHAFFER, Scientific discoveries and the end of natural philosophy, Social Studies of Science, 16 (1986) 387-421.
28. B. K. BLAYLOCK, An explanation of R&D decision processes through individual information processing preferences, R&D Management, 13 (1983) 129-141.
29. T. J. PINCH, Opening black boxes: Science, technology, and society, Social Studies of Science, 22 (1992) 487-510.
30. A. R. BROWN, Science and the creative imagination, Speculations in Science and Technology, 3 (1980) 563-572.
31. P. V. N. RAO, The Hindusthan Times, New Delhi, 23 July, 1993, 10.
32. M. E. GORMAN, Mind in the world: Cognition and practice in the invention of the telephone, Social Studies of Science, 27 (1997) 583-624.
33. S. HELMREICH, Recombination, rationality, reductionalism and romantic reactions: Culture, cumputers, and the genetic algorithm, Social Studies of Science, 28 (1998) 39-71.
34. R. D. TWENEY, S. A. YACHANIN, Can scientists rationally assess conditional inferences ? Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 155-173.
35. M. DOMSCH, T. GERPOTT, E. JOSCHUM, Peer assessment in industrial R & D departments, R&D Management, 13 (1983) 143-154.
36. M. G. RUSSELL, R. J. SAVER, Creating administrative environments for interdisciplinary research, Society for Research Administrators Journal, 14 (1983) 21-30.
37. C. LOEHLE, A critical path analysis of scientific productivity, Journal of Creative Behaviour, 28 (1994) 33-47.
38. W. DENNIS, Productivity among American psychologists, American Psychologist, 9 (1954) 191-194.
39. H. A. ZUCKERMAN, Nobel Laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship, American Sociological Review, 32 (1967) 391-403.
40. A. R. KIDWAI, Recruitment and training of scientific research personnel, Indian Journal of Public Administration, 15 (1969) 576-587.
41. G. SONNERT, What makes a good scientist ?: Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists, Social Studies of Science, 25 (1995) 35-55.
42. P. E. STEPHAN, S. G. LEVIN, Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact, Social Studies of Science, 21 (1991) 351-368.
43. T. S. KUHN, The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1962.
44. P. VINKLER, Research contribution, authorship and team co-operativeness, Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 213-230.
45. G. M. DOBROV, R. R. KOCHEROVETS, Scientific communication and scientists productivity, Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Infromatsiya Ser. 1, 11 (1979) 1-6.
46. C. MAGUIRE, R. KENCH, Sources of ideas for applied university research and their affect on the application of findings in Australian industry, Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984) 371-397.
47. L. VELHO, J. KRIGE, Publication and citation practices of Brazilian agricultural scientists, Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984) 45-62.
48. G. FOUREZ, Scientific and technological literacy as a social practice, Social Studies of Science, 27 (1997) 903-936.
49. P. KATARINA, Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity, Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 185-206.
50. P. KATARINA, Eminent scientists' productivity: Scientific excellence and sociocognitive context, Revija Za Sociologiju, 27 (1996) 37-52.