Research productivity in the internet era

Proceedings of ISSI 2005: 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics

Volumn 1, Issue , 2005, Pages 97-108

  Barjak, Franz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES AND ARTS NORTHWESTERN SWITZERLAND   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846389933     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (57)

1. Andrews, F. M. (1979). The international study: its data sources and measurement procedures. In F.M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity. The effectiveness of research groups in six countries (pp. 17-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Baird, L. L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department?Research in Higher Education, 25, 211-225.
3. Blackburn, R.T., Behymer, C.E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research Note: Correlates of Faculty Publications. Sociology of Education, 51, 132-141.
4. Blackburn, R., Bieber, J.P., Lawrence, L.H., & Trautvetter, L. (1991). Faculty at work: focus on research, scholarship and service. Research in Higher Education, 32, 385-413.
5. Bland, C. J., & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: literature review. Academic Medicine, 67, 385-397.
6. Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Fernandez, M.T., & Gomez, I. (2003). One step further in the production of bibliometrics indicator at the micro level: Differences by gender and professional category of scientists. Scientometrics, 57, 159-173.
7. Bordons, M., Gomez, I., Fernandez, M.T., Zulueta, M. A., & Mendez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37, 279-295.
8. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Publication and cooperation patterns of the authors of neuroscience journals. Scientometrics, 51, 499-510.
9. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1998): Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production?Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33, 1081-1102.
11. Carley, K. & Wendt, K. (1991). Electronic mail and scientific communication. A study of the SOAR extended research group. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12, 406-440.
12. Clark, B. R. (1995). Places of inquiry: research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
13. Cohen, J. (1996). Computer mediated communication and publication productivity among faculty. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 6(2/3), 41-63.
14. Cole, J.R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984): The productivity puzzle: persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. In P. Maehr & M. W. Steinkamp (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 2 (pp. 217-258). Greenwich: JAI Press.
15. European Commission (2003). Third European Report on Science &Technology Indicators 2003-Towards a knowledge-based economy. Brussels: European Commission.
16. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C, Neuschatz, M., & Uzzi, B. (1992): Athena unbound: Barriers to women in academic science and engineering. Science and Public Policy, 19, 157-179.
17. Finholt, T.A. (2002). Collaboratories. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 74-107.
18. Finholt, T. A.,&Olson, G. M. (1997). From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science, 8, 28-36.
19. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: a critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13, 283-305.
20. Fox, M.F. (1992). Research, teaching and publication productivity: mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 293-305.
21. Fry, J. (2004): The Cultural Shaping of ICTs within Academic Fields: Corpus-based Linguistics as a Case Study. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19, 303-319.
22. Glänzel, W. (2002). Co-authorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998). A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50, 461-473.
23. Gläser, J. (2003). What internet use does and does not change in scientific communities. Science Studies, 16, 38-51.
24. Greene, W. E. (2000): Econometric Analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic books.
26. Hemlin, S.,&Gustafsson, M. (1996). Research production in the arts and humanities - A questionnaire study of factors influencing research performance. Scientometrics, 37, 417-432.
27. de Hemptinne, Y., Andrews, F. M. (1979). The international comparative study on the organization and performance of research units: an overview. In F.M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity. The effectiveness of research groups in six countries (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Hesse, B. W., Sproull, L. S., Kiesler, S. B.,&Walsh, J. P. (1993). Returns to science: Computer networks in oceanography. Communications of the ACM 36(8), 90-101.
29. Hilgartner, S. (1995). Biomolecular database - new communication regimes for biology?Science Communication, 17, 240-263.
30. Hollingsworth, R.,&Hollingsworth, E.J. (2000). Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations: Perspectives on Interdisciplinarity, Nurturing Leadership, and Integrated Structure and Cultures. Retrieved March 08, 2005 from http://www.umu.se/inforsk/universitetsligan/hollingsworth.html.
31. Johnston, R. (1994). Effects of resource concentration on research performance. Higher Education, 28, 25-37.
32. Kaminer, N.,&Braunstein, Y.M. (1998). Bibliometric analysis of the impact of Internet use on scholarly productivity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 720-730.
33. Katz, J. S.,&Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
34. Kircz, J.G. (1998). Changing Presentations!Changing Science?Paper presented at the Colloquium "L'écrit de la science/Writing Science" organised by the journal "Alliage" for The European Science&Technology Forum of the European Commission (DG XII), Nice 12-14 March 1998. Retrieved October 12, 2003 from
35. http://www.science.uva.nl/projects/commphys/papers/nicem.htm
36. Kling, R., & Callahan, E. (2001). Electronic Journals, the Internet, and Scholarly Communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 127-177.
37. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the Shaping of Electronic Media in Supporting Scientific Communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 1306-1320.
38. Knorr, K. D., Mittermeir, R., Aichholzer, G., & Waller, G. (1979). Individual publication productivity as a social position effect in academic and industrial research units. In F.M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity. The effectiveness of research groups in six countries (pp. 55-94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA, and London: Sage Publications.
40. Leeuwen, T. N. van, Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S.,&van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51, 335-346.
41. Levin S.G., Stephan P.E. (1991). Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists. American Economic Review, 81, 114-132.
42. Long, J.S. (1978). Productivity and academic position in the scientific career. American Sociological Review, 43, 889-908.
43. Nentwich, M. (2003). Cyberscience-Research in the age of the Internet. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
44. Noam, E. M. (1995). Electronics and the Dim Future of the University. Science, 270, 247-249.
45. Pelz A. and Andrews A.(1966). Scientists in Organizations. Productive Climates for Research and Development. New York: John Wiley.
46. Prpic, K. (1996). Scientific fields and eminent scientists' productivity patterns and factors. Scientometrics, 37, 445-471.
47. Prpic, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55, 27-58.
48. Ramesh Babu, A.,&Singh, Y.P. (1998). Determinants of research productivity. Scientometrics, 43, 309-329.
49. Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28, 207-226.
50. Shauman, K., & Xie, Y. (2003). Explaining Sex Differences in Publication Productivity among Postsecondary Faculty. In L. S. Hornig (ed.), Equal Rights, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities (pp. 175-208). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
51. Steinmueller, W.E. (2000). Will information and communciation technology improve the 'codification' of knowledge? Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 361-376.
52. Van Alstyne M. and Brynjolfsson E. (1996). Could the Internet Balkanize Science? Science 274(5292), 1479-1480.
53. Visart, N. (1979). Communication between and within research units. In F.M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity. The effectiveness of research groups in six countries (pp. 223-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. von Tunzelmann, N., Ranga, M., Martin, B., & Geuna, A. (2003). The Effects of Size on Research Performance: A SPRU Review. Retrieved November 22, 2004, from University of Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit Web site: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/geunaost.pdf
55. Walsh, J. P., Kucker, S., Maloney, N.,&Gabbay, S. (2000). Connecting minds: CMC and scientific work. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 1295-1305.
56. Walsh, J.P., & Roselle, A. (1999). Computer Networks and the Virtual College. Global Research Village (Special Issue), STI Review, 24, 49-77.
57. Wray, K.B. (2003). Is science really a young man's game?Social Studies of Science, 33, 137-149.