Alfredo Yegros-Yegros

Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact? The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity.

This article analyses the effect of degree of interdisciplinarity on the citation impact of individual publications for four different scientific fields. We operationalise interdisciplinarity as disciplinary diversity in the references of a publication, and rather than treating interdisciplinarity as a monodimensional property, we investigate the separate effect of different aspects of diversity on citation impact: i.e. variety, balance and disparity. We use a Tobit regression model to examine the effect of these properties of interdisciplinarity on citation impact, controlling for a range of variables associated with the characteristics of publications. We find that variety has a positive effect on impact, whereas balance and disparity have a negative effect. Our results further qualify the separate effect of these three aspects of diversity by pointing out that all three dimensions of interdisciplinarity display a curvilinear (inverted U-shape) relationship with citation impact. These findings can be interpreted in two different ways. On the one hand, they are consistent with the view that, while combining multiple fields has a positive effect in knowledge creation, successful research is better achieved through research efforts that draw on a relatively proximal range of fields, as distal interdisciplinary research might be too risky and more likely to fail. On the other hand, these results may be interpreted as suggesting that scientific audiences are reluctant to cite heterodox papers that mix highly disparate bodies of knowledge—thus giving less credit to publications that are too groundbreaking or challenging.

What do university patent routes indicate at regional level

SummaryWe estimate the determinants of university patents by route in Spain. National patents are an indicator of R&D efforts when we focus on the region, but not of how regions organize their university or joint research structure. International patents are a stronger indicator of R&D efforts, so they express confidence in the potential of the patent. Neither set is an indicator of proximity to the regions competencies in technologies other than for production-intensive sectors, so they will not always foster regional technology transfer. Since the driving forces of national and international patents differ, the use of both is recommended.

In which regions do universities patent and publish more

The main objective of this contribution is to test whether university patents share common determinants with university publications at regional level. We build some university production functions with 1,519 patents and 180,239 publications for the 17 Spanish autonomous regions (NUTS-2) in a time span of 14 years (1988–2001). We use econometric models to estimate their determinants. Our results suggest that there is little scope for regional policy to compensate the production of patents vs. publications through different university or joint research institutional settings. On the contrary, while patents are more reactive to expenditure on R&D, publications are more responsive to the number of researchers, so the sustained promotion of both will make it compatible for regions their joint production. However, standing out in the generation of both outputs requires costly investment in various inputs.

University---industry R&D linkage metrics: validity and applicability in world university rankings

In September 2015 Thomson Reuters published its Ranking of Innovative Universities (RIU). Covering 100 large research-intensive universities worldwide, Stanford University came in first, MIT was second and Harvard in third position. But how meaningful is this outcome? In this paper we will take a critical view from a methodological perspective. We focus our attention on the various types of metrics available, whether or not data redundancies are addressed, and if metrics should be assembled into a single composite overall score or not. We address these issues in some detail by emphasizing one metric in particular: university–industry co-authored publications (UICs). We compare the RIU with three variants of our own University–Industry R&D Linkage Index, which we derived from the bibliometric analysis of 750 research universities worldwide. Our findings highlight conceptual and methodological problems with UIC-based data, as well as computational weaknesses such university ranking systems. Avoiding choices between size-dependent or independent metrics, and between single-metrics and multi-metrics systems, we recommend an alternative ‘scoreboard’ approach: (1) without weighing systems of metrics and composite scores; (2) computational procedures and information sources are made more transparent; (3) size-dependent metrics are kept separate from size-independent metrics; (4) UIC metrics are selected according to the type of proximity relationship between universities and industry.

Número de autores y colaboración institucional en los artículos originales de investigación biomédica española. Evolución de los valores básicos de referencia en el período 1990-2009

El número de autores de las publicaciones cientı́ficas y técnicas aumenta de forma continuada: el promedio casi se ha duplicado, pasando de 1,9 a 3,5 entre 1955 y 2000. El aumento es mayor en las ciencias sociales y se produce también en áreas donde las investigaciones no dependen del equipamiento o del tamaño de los laboratorios. Estudios similares de éste y otros equipos revelan estas mismas tendencias, evidenciadas también en la investigación médica. La creciente cooperación entre cientı́ficos favorece sus objetivos epistémicos: les permite plantear objetivos de investigación que no pueden abordar en solitario, porque facilita el manejo de recursos más abundantes y la combinación de conocimientos dispares; además, previene contra el hecho de que resultados de importancia pasen desapercibidos o se olviden; también juega un papel muy importante en la formación de jóvenes investigadores y es responsable de la rapidez con que avanza el conocimiento. El número de autores de los trabajos cientı́ficos se asocia a una mayor productividad de los grupos, a una mayor frecuencia de citas de los artı́culos que publican y a la obtención de más financiación. El fomento de la investigación cooperativa en medicina en España resulta naturalmente en la publicación de trabajos de autores múltiples. Sin embargo, al intentar traducir la autorı́a de los trabajos en mérito cientı́fico han surgido contradicciones y paradojas. El conflicto se plantea como sigue: ni el crédito ni la

Scientific mobility indicators in practice: International mobility profiles at the country level

This paper presents and describes the methodological opportunities offered by bibliometric data to produce indicators of scientific mobility. Large bibliographic datasets of disambiguated authors and their affiliations allow for the possibility of tracking the affiliation changes of scientists. Using the Web of Science as data source, we analyze the distribution of types of mobile scientists for a selection of countries. We explore the possibility of creating profiles of international mobility at the country level, and discuss potential interpretations and caveats. Five countries —Canada, The Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the United States- are used as examples. These profiles enable us to characterize these countries in terms of their strongest links with other countries. This type of analysis reveals circulation among and between countries with strong policy implications.