Introducing 'facilitymetrics': A first review and analysis of commonly used measures of scientific leadership among synchrotron radiation facilities worldwide

Scientometrics

Volumn 96, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 497-513

  Hallonsten, Olof ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Big Science; Performance assessment; Productivity; Quality assessment; Synchrotron radiation facilities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880136396     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0945-9     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Birgeneau, B., & Shen, Z. X. (1997). Report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Panel on D. O. E. synchrotron radiation sources and science. Washington, DC, US Department of Energy's Office of Science's Office of Basic Energy Science.
2. Doing, P. (2009). Velvet revolution at the synchrotron: biology, physics, and change in science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Elzinga, A. (2012). Features of the current science policy regime: viewed in historical perspective. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 416-428.
4. Frahm, R., & Williams, G. (2007). Twenty years of synchrotron radiation. Synchrotron Radiation News, 20(1), 2-3.
5. Hallonsten, O. (2009). Small science on big machines: politics and practices of synchrotron radiation laboratories. Dissertation, Lund University, Lund.
6. Hallonsten, O. (2012). Continuity and change in the politics of European scientific collaboration. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8(3), 300-319.
7. Hallonsten, O., & Heinze, T. (2012). Institutional persistence through gradual adaptation: analysis of national laboratories in the USA and Germany. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 450-463.
8. Holl, J. M. (1997). Argonne National Laboratory 1946-96. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
9. Jacob, M., & Hallonsten, O. (2012). The persistence of big science and megascience in research and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 411-415.
10. Krige, J. (2003). The Politics of European Scientific Collaboration. In J. Krige & D. Pestre (Eds.), Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century (pp. 897-918). London: Routledge.
11. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3180), 56-63.
12. NUFO. (2009). Participation by industrial users in research at national user facilities: status, issues, and recommendations. Preliminary report prepared as a summary of a 11 June 2009, industrial usage workshop conducted under the auspices of the National User Facility Organization (NUFO) at Argonne National Laboratory, 3 Aug 2009.
13. Papon, P. (2004). European scientific cooperation and research infrastructures: past tendencies and future prospects. Minerva, 42(1), 61-76.
14. Sasaki, T. (1997). A prospect and retrospect-the Japanese case. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, 4, 359-365.
15. Spring-8. (2012). History. SPring-8. http://www. spring8. or. jp/en/about_us/history/. Accessed 24 Sept 2012.
16. Westfall, C. (2008). Retooling for the future: launching the advanced light source at Lawrence's Laboratory, 1980-1986. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 38(4), 569-609.
17. Westfall, C. (2010). Surviving to tell the tale: Argonne's intense pulsed neutron source from an ecosystem perspective. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 40(3), 350-398.
18. Westfall, C. (2012). Institutional persistence and the material transformation of the US National Labs: the curious story of the advent of the advanced photon source. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 439-449.