Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for
- Author or Editor: C. Jansz x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Abstract
The merits and shortcomings of bibliometric evaluation techniques are well known; the reliability of the techniques varies according to the discipline. For technology the reliability is small. The electron microscope is a clear case of extreme mismatch between the number of citations received and the impact of the instrument in a wide area of science. The instrument is comparable to a scientific publication in the way in which it is used and referred to in the literature. In this paper we estimate the size of the citation gap, i.e. the number of citations an author misses because the results of his research are made public in the form of an instrument instead of via an article in a journal.
Abstract
The Novosibirsk region is one of the most industrialized in Siberia. In 1957 the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (now Siberian Branch of the RAS (SBRAS)) was set up to stimulate a rapid development of the Siberian and Far East research forces. The goal of this mainly bibliometric, empirical study is to obtain insight into R&D performance in the Novosibirsk region, domestic and international collaborations and the impact of new government science policies focused on boosting the research and innovation activities of regional universities. Key drivers of research performance are institutions of the SBRAS. Second place in terms of research output belongs to Novosibirsk State University. Its research focuses on hard sciences. 75% of its papers were published in collaboration with SBRAS institutions. Research output is growing. Novosibirsk area's share of RFBR grants was stable around 8%. Publications from RFBR grantees in 34 subject categories had a level-aggregated indicator value of one or higher. In these hard-science areas Russian research develops in accordance with global trends. We observed a concentration of domestic collaboration in the Novosibirsk area as well as a strong international collaboration with advanced economies, in particular in the Asia–Pacific region.
Abstract
The tremendous social and political changes that culminated in the Soviet Union's dissolution had a great impact on the Russian science community. Due to the Russian transformation to a market economy a new model of R&D emerged on the basis of the higher education system (R&D in universities). This paper is part of a project, the main goals of which were to analyse the impact of competitive funding on R&D in provincial universities, the distribution of funding by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the level of cross-sectoral and international collaboration. This paper gives a descriptive overview of R&D conducted at the 380 provincial universities, looking at 9,800 applications, 1,950 research projects, 19,981 individuals, and more than 29,600 publications for the period 1996–2001. Our data demonstrated a positive tendency in demographic statistics in the provinces. A map of intra-national collaboration taking place in 1995–2002 in provincial universities situated in different economic regions was designed. Our data show a strong collaboration within the regions, which is an important factor of sustainability. Publication output grew by a factor two or two-and half in six years. The share in output on mathematics was the highest at about 45%, physics and chemistry had equal shares of about 20% each. Researchers from the Ural and Povolzh'e regions were more active in knowledge dissemination than their colleagues from the other nine economic-geographic regions. Bibliometric analysis of more than 1,450 international collaborative publications for 1999–2001 demonstrated a strong shift in collaboration partners from Former East Block and former USSR countries to Western Europe, USA and Japan. Among the regions, Povolzh'e, Ural, Volgo-Vyatsky and Central Chernozem'e demonstrated a stronger tendency to collaborate. This collaboration depends heavily on financial support from foreign countries.
Concerns about problematic gaming behaviors deserve our full attention. However, we claim that it is far from clear that these problems can or should be attributed to a new disorder. The empirical basis for a Gaming Disorder proposal, such as in the new ICD-11, suffers from fundamental issues. Our main concerns are the low quality of the research base, the fact that the current operationalization leans too heavily on substance use and gambling criteria, and the lack of consensus on symptomatology and assessment of problematic gaming. The act of formalizing this disorder, even as a proposal, has negative medical, scientific, public-health, societal, and human rights fallout that should be considered. Of particular concern are moral panics around the harm of video gaming. They might result in premature application of diagnosis in the medical community and the treatment of abundant false-positive cases, especially for children and adolescents. Second, research will be locked into a confirmatory approach, rather than an exploration of the boundaries of normal versus pathological. Third, the healthy majority of gamers will be affected negatively. We expect that the premature inclusion of Gaming Disorder as a diagnosis in ICD-11 will cause significant stigma to the millions of children who play video games as a part of a normal, healthy life. At this point, suggesting formal diagnoses and categories is premature: the ICD-11 proposal for Gaming Disorder should be removed to avoid a waste of public health resources as well as to avoid causing harm to healthy video gamers around the world.
