Sample and procedure We used cross-national data from the 2017/2018 HBSC study. This school-based study monitored adolescent health and well-being in several countries across Europe, North America, and the Middle East. The current study included five of
The macro-level country-by-country co-authorship, cross-reference and cross-citation analysis started in our previous paper,1
continues with revealing the cross-national preference stucture of the 36 selected countries. Preference indicators of co-authorship,
cross-reference and cross-citation are defined, presented and discussed. The study revealed that geopolitical location, cultural
relations and language are determining factors in shaping preferences whether in co-authorship, cross-reference or cross-citation.
Areas like Central Europe, Scandinavia, Latin America (supplemented with Spain and Portugal), the Far East or the Australia-New
Zealand-South Africa triad form typical “clusters” with mutually strong preferences towards each other. The USA appears to
have a distinguished role enjoying universal preference, which - in the cross-reference and cross-citation case - is asymmetric
for the greater part of the countries under study.
In this study, the specialization profiles of eleven countries are compared along two interconnected but distinct dimensions of research, viz. publication output and citation impact in nine subfields of chemistry. The data for comparative analysis were taken from Scientometric Datafiles.1Since raw counts of publications and citations are confounded by the size of the countries and the size of subject fields, cross-national comparison is made, using relative indicators—activity index and attractivity index. The subfields of relative strength and weakness for these countries are identified from the values of these indicators. The similarity structure of specialization profiles of the eleven countries is mapped, using hierarchical cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling. This mapping leads to the representation of chemistry as it is structured by the dynamics of national science policies of these countries.
A new indicator, called thepublication potential, is proposed to measure scientific strength of different countries. The indicator is based onSCI author counts and publication frequency distributions. Not depending on national statistical reports, it avoids the ambiguities of statistical definitions and methods, thereby providing a solid ground for cross-national comparisons. Publication based and statistical survey data for 34 countries are compared and some of the most conspicuous discrepancies are pinpointed.
The paper empirically tests the proposition that because of the unequal social distribution of politically relevant resources, some groups of citizens may be less successful in expressing their specifically political preferences in the vote than others. Hence, the electoral arena may give different people different degrees of political influence even when the formal equality of all citizens before the law is rigorously upheld in the electoral process. The first part of the paper (published in the previous issue of this journal) explored the assumptions behind the proposition itself and the further assumptions that need to be made in order to test it empirically. The second part of the paper offers an empirical test. Survey data on voting behavior in 18 democratic party systems from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and Larry Bartels's (1996) simulation procedure - now extended to the analysis of multiparty-systems, turnout effects and non-linear information effects on the vote - are utilized to explore the question. The results show that social differences in both turnout and political knowledge may lead to the hypothesized political inequalities but their size is remarkably modest.
Studies of strafication in science have increasingly accepted the idea that science is a highly stratified and elitist system with skewed distributions of productivity and rewards. Attempts to explain the higher productivity of higher status scientists by pointing to their greater ease of publication as far as acceptance of their work by journals and publishers is concerned were not supported by the data in some recent studies. If status in general does not confer greater ease of publication the present paper argues that position within a research organization does confer greater ease of author — or co-authorship — and this is the major explanatory variable accounting for productivity differences within research laboratories as far as quantity of articles (and books) is concerned. upward moves in a laboratory's formal or informal position hierarchy are associated with a change of a scientist's research involvement from goal executing to goal setting functions as well as with an increasing access to scientific manpower and project money. Goal setting tasks provide for a significant reduction of time-expenditures in research necessary to assure that the scientist is identified with the research results; consequently, they allow for an involvement in more research tasks than originally. Equivalently, resources in scientific manpower and project money act as a multiplying element as far as quantity of output is concerned.
This paper attempts to reveal the characteristics of high activity areas of world research in Physics. “Frontier areas”-areas
of high activity and areas of low activity are identified. Research activities in “Frontier areas” for twenty six countries
(major countries) contributing maximum research output in Physics are analyzed for two time periods (1990 & 1995). The main
objective of this study is to reveal the areas of research priorities, trends, gaps and similarity of research efforts of
major countries in these “frontier” areas. Key countries in these areas in both the time periods are identified. Multivariate
Scaling Algorithm is applied to the countries and fields in each time period, and also simultaneously to understand the relationship
between countries and fields and the dynamics of change in research priorities. Results and implications of this study for
policy research is highlighted.