Qualifying the performance evaluation of Big Science beyond productivity, impact and costs

Scientometrics

Volumn 104, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 295-312

  Heidler, Richard ^a   Hallonsten, Olof ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WUPPERTAL   (Germany)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Big Science; Network analysis; Performance assessment; Productivity; Quality assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930824264     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1577-7     Document Type: Article

References (29)

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, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences.
2. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment,2008(10), P10008.
3. Doing, P. (2009). Velvet revolution at the synchrotron: Biology, physics, and change in science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Elzinga, A. (2012). Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in historical perspective. Science and Public Policy,39, 416–428.
5. Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (Eds.). (1992). Big science—The growth of large-scale research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science,122, 108–111.
7. Gowanlock, M. G., & Gazan, R. (2013). Assessing researcher interdisciplinarity: A case study of the University of Hawaii NASA Astrobiology Institute. Scientometrics,94(1), 133–161.
8. Greenberg, D. S. (1999/1967). The politics of pure science, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
9. Greenberg, D. S. (2001). Science, money and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
10. Hallonsten, O. (2013). Introducing facilitymetrics: A first review and analysis of commonly used measures of scientific leadership among synchrotron radiation facilities worldwide. Scientometrics,96(2), 497–513.
11. Hallonsten, O. (2014). How expensive is Big Science? Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities. Scientometrics,100(2), 483–496.
12. Hallonsten, O., & Heinze, T. (2012). Institutional persistence through gradual adaptation: Analysis of national laboratories in the USA and Germany. Science and Public Policy,39, 450–463.
13. Hallonsten, O., & Heinze, T. (2013). From particle physics to photon science: Multidimensional and multilevel renewal at DESY and SLAC. Science and Public Policy,40(5), 591–603.
14. Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education. The battle for world-class excellence. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Heinze, T., Heidler, R., Heiberger, H., & Riebling, R. (2013). New patterns of scientific growth. How research expanded after the invention of scanning tunneling microscopy and the discovery of Buckminsterfullerenes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64, 829–843.
16. Kevles, D. J. (1997). Big Science and big politics in the United States: Reflections on the death of the SSC and the life of the Human Genome Project. Historical studies in the physical and biological sciences,27(2), 269–297.
17. LCLS. (1998). Linac coherent light source (LCLS) design study report. SLAC-R-521, Rev. December 1998, UC-414.
18. LCLS. (2000). LCLS. The first experiments. Report, SLAC, September 2000.
19. LCLS. (2002). Linac coherent light source (LCLS) conceptual design report. SLAC–R–593, April 2002, UC-414.
20. Leone, S. R. (1999). Report of the basic energy sciences advisory committee panel on novel coherent light sources. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences.
21. Münch, R. (2013). Academic capitalism. London: Routledge.
22. Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics,81(3), 719–745.
23. Small, H. (2010). Maps of science as interdisciplinary discourse: Co-citation contexts and the role of analogy. Scientometrics,83(3), 835–849.
24. Stevens, H. (2003). Fundamental physics and its justifications, 1945–1993. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences,34(1), 151–197.
25. Westfall, C. (2008). Surviving the squeeze: National laboratories in the 1970s and 1980s. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences,38(4), 475–478.
26. 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.
27. Westwick, P. J. (2003). The national labs: Science in an American system 1947–1974. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race: How global universities are reshaping the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
29. Woods, H. R. (2006). New life for a linac. Symmetry,3(7), 10–15.