Éric Archambault

Benchmarking Scientific Output in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Limits of Existing Databases

SummaryThe goal of this paper is to examine the impact of linguistic coverage of databases used by bibliometricians on the capacity to effectively benchmark the work of researchers in social sciences and humanities. We examine the strong link between bibliometrics and the Thomson Scientifics database and review the differences in the production and diffusion of knowledge in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) and the natural sciences and engineering (NSE). This leads to a re-examination of the debate on the coverage of these databases, more specifically in the SSH. The methods section explains how we have compared the coverage of Thomson Scientific databases in the NSE and SSH to the Ulrich extensive database of journals. Our results show that there is a 20 to 25% overrepresentation of English-language journals in Thomson Scientifics databases compared to the list of journals presented in Ulrich. This paper concludes that because of this bias, Thomson Scientific databases cannot be used in isolation to benchmark the output of countries in the SSH.

The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities

Journal articles constitute the core documents for the diffusion of knowledge in the natural sciences. It has been argued that the same is not true for the social sciences and humanities where knowledge is more often disseminated in monographs that are not indexed in the journal-based databases used for bibliometric analysis. Previous studies have made only partial assessments of the role played by both serials and other types of literature. The importance of journal literature in the various scientific fields has therefore not been systematically characterized. The authors address this issue by providing a systematic measurement of the role played by journal literature in the building of knowledge in both the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities. Using citation data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) databases from 1981 to 2000 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), the authors quantify the share of citations to both serials and other types of literature. Variations in time and between fields are also analyzed. The results show that journal literature is increasingly important in the natural and social sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature.

History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences

This paper examines the genesis of journal impact measures and how their evolution culminated in the journal impact factor (JIF) produced by the Institute for Scientific Information. The paper shows how the various building blocks of the dominant JIF (published in the Journal Citation Report - JCR) came into being. The paper argues that these building blocks were all constructed fairly arbitrarily or for different purposes than those that govern the contemporary use of the JIF. The results are a faulty method, widely open to manipulation by journal editors and misuse by uncritical parties. The discussion examines some solution offered to the bibliometrics and scientific communities considering the wide use of this indicator at present.

Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities

SummaryA basic dichotomy is generally made between publication practices in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE) on the one hand and social sciences and humanities (SSH) on the other. However, while researchers in the NSE share some common practices with researchers in SSH, the spectrum of practices is broader in the latter. Drawing on data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index, SocialSciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index from 1980 to 2002, this paper compares collaboration patterns in the SSH to those in the NSE. We show that, contrary to a widely held belief, researchers in the social sciences and the humanities do not form a homogeneous category. In fact, collaborative activities of researchers in the social sciences are more comparable to those of researchers in the NSE than in the humanities. Also, we see that language and geographical proximity influences the choice of collaborators in the SSH, but also in the NSE. This empirical analysis, which sheds a new light on the collaborative activities of researchers in the NSE compared to those in the SSH, may have policy implications as granting councils in these fields have a tendency to imitate programs developed for the NSE, without always taking into account the specificity of the humanities.

Bibliometrics as a Performance Measurement Tool for Research Evaluation: The Case of Research Funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada

As bibliometric indicators are objective, reliable, and cost-effective measures of peer-reviewed research outputs, they are expected to play an increasingly important role in research assessment/management. Recently, a bibliometric approach was developed and integrated within the evaluation framework of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC). This approach helped address the following questions that were difficult to answer objectively using alternative methods such as program documentation review and key informant interviews: (a) Has the NCIC peer-review process selected outstanding Canadian scientists in cancer research? (b) Have the NCIC grants contributed to increasing the scientific performance of supported researchers? (c) How do the NCIC-supported researchers compare to their neighbors supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute? Using the NCIC evaluation as a case study, this article demonstrates the usefulness of bibliometrics to address key evaluation questions and discusses its integration, along complementary indicators (e.g., peer ratings), in a practice-driven research evaluation continuum.

The declining scientific impact of theses: Implications for electronic thesis and dissertation repositories and graduate studies

Although the writing of a thesis is a very important step for scientists undertaking a career in research, little information exists on the impact of theses as a source of scientific information. Knowing the impact of theses is relevant not only for students undertaking graduate studies, but also for the building of repositories of electronic theses and dissertations (ETD) and the substantial investment this involves. This paper shows that the impact of theses as information sources has been generally declining over the last century, apart from during the period of the ‘golden years’ of research, 1945 to 1975. There is no evidence of ETDs having a positive impact; on the contrary, since their introduction the impact of theses has actually declined more rapidly. This raises questions about the justification for ETDs and the appropriateness of writing monograph style theses as opposed to publication of a series of peer-reviewed papers as the requirement for fulfilment of graduate studies.

Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations.

Using the population of all university professors (N = 13,479) in the province of Quebec, Canada, this article analyses the concentration of funding, papers and citations at the level of individual researchers. It shows that each of these distributions is different, citations being the most concentrated followed by funding, papers published and, finally, number of funded projects. Concentration measures also vary between disciplines; social sciences and humanities generally being the most concentrated. The article also shows that the correspondence between the elites defined by each of these measures is limited. In fact, only 3.2% of the researchers are in the top 10% for all indicators, while about 20% are in the top 10% for at least one of the indicators. The article concludes with a discussion of the causes of these observed differences and formulates a few hypotheses. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The Dynamics of Pharmaceutical Patenting in India: Evidence from USPTO Data

Abstract This article analyses the impact of the implementation of the ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’ (TRIPS) on various segments of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. In particular, it focuses on the conditions under which a strong patent system can create benefits for a developing countrys pharmaceutical industry. The theoretical analysis suggests that the greater the technological capabilities of the Indian pharmaceutical industry the greater are its chances to benefit from the introduction of stronger intellectual property rights (IPRs). The evidence presented paints a generally positive picture of the state of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, with the existence of strong and growing technological competencies that can be used as a platform for further expansion. These conclusions are dependent on Indias worldwide success in the industry and cannot be automatically applied to other developing countries, especially if their pharmaceutical industry is not strong at the moment of the transition to a stronger IPR regime.

Scientific publications and patenting by companies: a study of the whole population of Canadian firms over 25 years

There is evidence in the literature that technological inventions have an increasing connection to scientific knowledge. This raises two related questions: (1) Are firms increasingly conducting scientific basic research? (2) Is being at the scientific forefront helping firms to be closer to the technological frontier? This paper examines scientific output, as measured by numbers of papers, and technological output, as measured by patents granted to all Canadian firms, during the 1980 to 2005 period. Though the number of firms publishing papers and obtaining patents is increasing, scientific research and patenting by Canadian firms are at near ‘homeopathic’ levels. Firms that both publish papers and obtain patents (1) perform research that is more basic than firms that only publish scientific papers; (2) publish in more highly cited journals than firms that only perform scientific research; (3) publish papers that are more highly cited; and 4) hold patents that are more frequently cited. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.