Characteristics and disparities among sub-specialities: A case study of biotechnology research teams;Características y disparidades entre sub-especialidades: Un estudio de caso con grupos de biotecnología

Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 563-580

  Morillo, Fernanda ^a   Aparicio, Javier ^a  

^a la Tecnologia y la Innovacion   (Spain)

Author keywords

Assessment; Bibliometric indicators; Biotechnology; Research teams; Sub specialities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856094156     PISSN: 02100614     EISSN: 19884621     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3989/redc.2011.4.837     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Albert, A.; Granadino, B., y Plaza, L. M. (2007). Scientic and technological performance evaluation of the Spanish Council for Scientic Research (CSIC) in the eld of Biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70 (1): 41-51.
2. Batagelj, V., y Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek: a program for large network analysis. Connections (Tor.), 21 (2), 47-57.
3. Beaver, D. De B. (2001). Reections on scientic collaboration (and its study): past, pre-sent and future. Scientometrics, 52 (3), 365-377.
4. Bordons, M.; Morillo, F.; Fernández, M. T.; Gómez, I.; León, M., y Martín D. (2005). La investigación matemática española de difusión internacional. Estudio bibliométrico 1996-2001. CSIC.
5. Bordons, M.; Zulueta, M. A.; Cabrero, A., y Barrigón, S. (1995). Identifying research teams with bibliometric tools. En: Koenig, M. E. D. y Bookstein, A. (eds.), Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Learned Information, Medford.
6. Börner, K.; Dall'Asta, L.; Ke, W., y Vespignani, A. (2005). Studying the Emerging Global Brain: Analyzing and Visualizing the Impact of Co-Authorship Teams. Complexity, 10 (4), 57-67.
7. Calero, C.; Buter, R.; Cabello Valdés, C., y Noyons, E. (2006). How to identify research groups using publication analysis: an example in the eld of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 66 (2), 365-376.
8. Casper, S., y Murray, F. (2005). Careers and clusters: analyzing the career network dynamic of biotechnology clusters. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22, 51-74.
9. Dalpé, R. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 55 (2): 189-213.
10. De Nooy, W.; Mrvar, A., y Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory Network Analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press.
11. Frenken, K.; Hölzl, W., y de Vor, F. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: the case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988-2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22, 9-30.
12. Frenken, K.; Ponds, R., y Van Oort, F. (2010). The citation impact of research collaboration in science-based industries: A spatial-institutional analysis. Papers in Regional Science, 89 (2): 351-371.
13. Glänzel, W., y Schubert, A. (2003). A new classication scheme of science elds and sub-elds designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56 (3): 357-367.
14. Glänzel, W., y Zhou, P. (2011). Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology. Scientometrics, 86 (2): 505-525.
15. IBM SPSS Statistics Base 19 (2010). © Copyright SPSS Inc. 1989, 2010.
16. Hinze, S., y Grupp, H. (1996). Mapping of R&D structures in transdisciplinary areas: new Biotechnology in Food Sciences. Scientometrics, 37 (2): 313-335.
17. Katz, J. S., y Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26: 1-18.
18. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35 (2S): S116-S123.
19. Langfeldt, L. (2006). The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation, 15 (1): 31-41.
20. Laudel, G. (2006). Conclave in the Tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Research Evaluation, 15 (1): 57-68.
21. Leydesdorff, L., y Heimeriks, G. (2001). The Self-Organization of the European Information Society: The Case of «Biotechnology». Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (14): 1262-1274.
22. McCain, K. (1995). The Structure of Biotechnology R & D. Scientometrics, 32 (2): 153-175.
23. Morillo, F., y De Filippo, D. (2009a). Descentralización de la actividad cientíca. El papel determinante de las regiones centrales: el caso de Madrid. Revista Española de Docu-mentación Cientíca, 32 (3): 29-50.
24. Morillo, F.; Aparicio, J., y Bordons, M. (2009b). Informe sobre la Biotecnología en la Co-munidad de Madrid (1999-2002 y 2003-2006). Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT-CCHS), CSIC, Madrid.
25. Morillo, F.; Aparicio, J., y Bordons, M. (2009c). The Role of Sub-Specialities in the Assessment of Research Teams. En: Larsen, B. y Leta, J.(eds.). Proceedings of ISSI 2009. 12th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Río de Janeiro, Brasil.
26. Morillo, F.; Bordons, M., y Gómez, I. (2003.) Interdisciplinarity in science: a tentative typology of disciplines in research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (13): 1237-1249.
27. Noma, E. (1986). Subject classication and inuence weights for 3,000 journals. Report. Computer Horizons, Inc./CHI Research [datos actualizados a 2007 por The Patent Board, nombre actual de CHI Inc.].
28. Pérez, C. (2005). Técnicas Estadísticas con SPSS © 12. Aplicaciones al análisis de datos. Pearson Educación, S. A., Madrid.
29. Porter, A. L.; Schoeneck, D. J.; Roessner, D., y Garner, J. (2010). Practical research proposal and publication proling. Research Evaluation, 19 (1): 29-44.
30. Rey-Rocha J.; Garzon-Garcia, B., y Martin-Sempere, M. J. (2006). Scientists' performance and consolidation of research teams in Biology and Biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientic Research. Scientometrics, 69 (2): 183-212.
31. Rip, A., y Courtial, J. P. (1984). Co-word maps of Biotechnology: an example of cognitive Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6 (6): 381-400.
32. Seglen, P. O., y Aksnes, D. W. (2000). Scientic productivity and group size: A bibliometric analysis of Norwegian microbiological research. Scientometrics, 49 (1), 125-143.
33. van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: research group indicator distributions and correlations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (3): 408-430.
34. Vinkler, P. (2000). Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators. Current Science, 79 (5): 602-612.