Etienne Vignola-Gagné

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.

Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors

Using the entire population of professors at universities in the province of Quebec (Canada), this article analyzes the relationship between sex and research funding, publication rates, and scientific impact. Since age is an important factor in research and the population pyramids of men and women are different, the role of age is also analyzed. The article shows that, after they have passed the age of about 38, women receive, on average, less funding for research than men, are generally less productive in terms of publications, and are at a slight disadvantage in terms of the scientific impact (measured by citations) of their publications. Various explanations for these differences are suggested, such as the more restricted collaboration networks of women, motherhood and the accompanying division of labour, women’s rank within the hierarchy of the scientific community and access to resources as well as their choice of research topics and level of specialization.

Translational research policies: disruptions and continuities in biomedical innovation systems in Austria, Finland and Germany

Increasing the rate of biomedical research that is relevant to clinical innovation has been an intensifying concern of the research community and of policy-makers. In response, some of these actors have recently promoted varied approaches they label as translational research (TR) and translational medicine. This movement started in the USA in the early 1990s, and has since evolved to encompass large and ambitious initiatives. Its advocates contend that the productivity of biomedical innovation systems can be bolstered by: (1) the extension of large-scale development collaborations; (2) the strengthening of clinical experimental platforms; (3) training and supporting dedicated human capital; (4) achieving higher collective coordination of research teams than was previously common practice. In this paper, we examine to which extent these objectives have been put into practice by communities of biomedical actors and policymakers, by characterizing current translational initiatives in three European countries—Austria, Finland and Germany. This research draws on an analysis of policy documents and 26 semi-structured interviews conducted with policy-makers and TR advocates from these countries. Traditions of science and technology policy-making in each country have made them differentially receptive to the TR movement. German biomedical actors have most fully put into practice TR propositions, while Finland has seen policy-level debate of the notions but little in the way of concrete implementation and Austria appears to be a middle case.

EU policies in personalized medicine-related technologies

Against the background of a number of first drug-diagnostic co-products developed and introduced into the European market, European decision-makers feel impelled to react and position themselves in the field of personalized medicine. Their reactions cover a broad range, from the analysis of knowledge requirements for market approval to the need for translational activities and the possible contribution of pharmacogenetics to public health. This article summarizes the current positions of European institutions, based on literature review and expert consultation for three items associated with personalized medicine: biobanks, genetic diagnostics and drug-diagnostic co-products, and provides an outlook on requirements for an effective future European policy on personalized medicine.

Extending experimentation: oncology’s fading boundary between research and care

Historians and social scientists view the distinction between research and care as diachronically and synchronically contingent, rather than transcendental, as is often the case in bioethics. Comparing how the notion of total care was used in the 1950s with present-day use of that same term by genomically informed oncology programs, the paper argues that the distinction between research and care needs: to be historicized, by examining its repeated emergence and re-definition, and the shifting relations between these two “ideal-typical” components; and to be problematized, by paying attention to the entities, practices, and institutions that are constitutive of the successive regimens that have punctuated oncology’s development. Shifting to contemporary activities, the paper examines how the recent massive injection of molecular biology and high-throughput genomic technologies in the field of oncology has been accompanied by a reshuffling of the research/care distinction, a process that is leading to new forms of “experimental care”.

Informing materials: drugs as tools for exploring cancer mechanisms and pathways

This paper builds on previous work that investigated anticancer drugs as ‘informed materials’, i.e., substances that undergo an informational enrichment that situates them in a dense relational web of qualifications and measurements generated by clinical experiments and clinical trials. The paper analyzes the recent transformation of anticancer drugs from ‘informed’ to ‘informing material’. Briefly put: in the post-genomic era, anti-cancer drugs have become instruments for the production of new biological, pathological, and therapeutic insights into the underlying etiology and evolution of cancer. Genomic platforms characterize individual patients’ tumors based on their mutational landscapes. As part of this new approach, drugs targeting specific mutations transcend informational enrichment to become tools for informing (and destabilizing) their targets, while also problematizing the very notion of a ‘target’. In other words, they have become tools for the exploration of cancer pathways and mechanisms. While several studies in the philosophy and history of biomedicine have called attention to the heuristic relevance and experimental use of drugs, few have investigated concrete instances of this role of drugs in clinical research.

Correction to: Informing materials: drugs as tools for exploring cancer mechanisms and pathways

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. Three entries are incorrect in the reference list. The corrected references are given below.