Flavia Di Costa

Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation?

The incidence of extramural collaboration in academic research activities is increasing as a result of various factors. These factors include policy measures aimed at fostering partnership and networking among the various components of the research system, policies which are in turn justified by the idea that knowledge sharing could increase the effectiveness of the system. Over the last two decades, the scientific community has also stepped up activities to assess the actual impact of collaboration intensity on the performance of research systems. This study draws on a number of empirical analyses, with the intention of measuring the effects of extramural collaboration on research performance and, indirectly, verifying the legitimacy of policies that support this type of collaboration. The analysis focuses on the Italian academic research system. The aim of the work is to assess the level of correlation, at institutional level, between scientific productivity and collaboration intensity as a whole, both internationally and with private organizations. This will be carried out using a bibliometric type of approach, which equates collaboration with the co-authorship of scientific publications.

University–industry collaboration in Italy: a bibliometric examination

Abstract This work investigates public–private research collaboration between Italian universities and domestic industry, applying a bibliometric type of approach. The study is based on an exhaustive listing of all co-authored publications in international journals that are jointly realized by Italian university scientists and researchers in the private sector; this listing permits the development of a national mapping system for public–private collaboration that is unique for its extensive and representative character. It is shown that, in absolute terms, most collaborations occur in medicine and chemistry, while it is industrial and information engineering that shows the highest percentage of co-authored articles out of all articles in the field. In addition, the investigation empirically examines and tests several hypotheses concerning the qualitative–quantitative impact of collaboration on the scientific production of individual university researchers. The analyses demonstrate that university researchers who collaborate with those in the private sector show research performance that is superior to that of colleagues who are not involved in such collaboration. But the impact factor of journals publishing academic articles co-authored by industry is generally lower than that concerning co-authorships with other entities. Finally, a further specific elaboration also reveals that publications with public–private co-authorship do not show a level of multidisciplinarity that is significantly different from that of other publications.

Assessment of sectoral aggregation distortion in research productivity measurements

The reliability and correctness of the results of the assessment of research productivity in universities by means of bibliometric techniques depend on the level of data aggregation used for the analysis by disciplinary area. The variability among the university research fields, the varying prolificacy of the scientific disciplines and the different levels of representativeness by discipline of the journals covered in source databases are the main causes leading to distortions. Such effects can be reduced considerably by using a level of data aggregation by discipline which is as homogeneous and uniform as possible. This study compares the research productivity data of Italian universities at two different levels of aggregation of output and input data, thus showing and assessing the scale of the distortions that may result. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones?

This work analyses the links between individual research performance and academic rank. A typical bibliometric methodology is used to study the performance of all Italian university researchers active in the hard sciences, for the period 2004–2008. The objective is to characterize the performance of the ranks of full (FPs), associate and assistant professors (APs), along various dimensions, in order to verify the existence of performance differences among the ranks in general and for single disciplines.

National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings

Development of bibliometric techniques has reached such a level as to suggest their integration or total substitution for classic peer review in the national research assessment exercises, as far as the hard sciences are concerned. In this work we compare rankings lists of universities captured by the first Italian evaluation exercise, through peer review, with the results of bibliometric simulations. The comparison shows the great differences between peer review and bibliometric rankings for excellence and productivity.

Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable?

In recent years bibliometricians have paid increasing attention to research evaluation methodological problems, among these being the choice of the most appropriate indicators for evaluating quality of scientific publications, and thus for evaluating the work of single scientists, research groups and entire organizations. Much literature has been devoted to analyzing the robustness of various indicators, and many works warn against the risks of using easily available and relatively simple proxies, such as journal impact factor. The present work continues this line of research, examining whether it is valid that the use of the impact factor should always be avoided in favour of citations, or whether the use of impact factor could be acceptable, even preferable, in certain circumstances. The evaluation was conducted by observing all scientific publications in the hard sciences by Italian universities, for the period 2004–2007. Performance sensitivity analyses were conducted with changing indicators of quality and years of observation.

University-industry research collaboration: a model to assess university capability

Scholars and policy makers recognize that collaboration between industry and the public research institutions is a necessity for innovation and national economic development. This work presents an econometric model which expresses the university capability for collaboration with industry as a function of size, location and research quality. The field of observation is made of the census of 2001–2003 scientific articles in the hard sciences, co-authored by universities and private enterprises located in Italy. The analysis shows that research quality of universities has an impact higher than geographic distance on the capability for collaborating with industry. The model proposed and the measures that descend from it are suited for use at various levels of administration, to assist in realizing the “third role” of universities: the contribution to socio-economic development through public to private technology transfer.

The role of information asymmetry in the market for university-industry research collaboration

This study concerns the market for research collaboration between industry and universities. It presents an analysis of the population of all Italian university–industry collaborations that resulted in at least one international scientific publication between 2001 and 2003. Using spatial and bibliometric analysis relating to scientific output of university researchers, the study shows the importance of geographic proximity in companies’ choices of university partner. The analysis also reveals inefficiency in the market: in a large proportion of cases private companies could have chosen more qualified research partners in universities located closer to the place of business.

Mapping Excellence in National Research Systems The Case of Italy

The study of “scientific excellence” is taking on increasing importance in the development of research policies in many nations. However, scientific excellence is difficult to define because of its multidimensional and highly complex character. This work contributes to the state of the art by exploring an effective, simple, and inexpensive bibliometric methodology that further identifies “excellent” centers of research by beginning with the individual researchers affiliated with such centers. The study concentrates on public research organizations in Italy, analyzing 109 scientific categories of research in the “hard” sciences and 157 centers of excellence operating in 60 of these categories. Findings from this first application of the methodology should be considered exploratory and indicative. With a longer period of observation and the addition of further measurements, this methodology could be extended and adapted to a variety of national and supranational contexts, aiding policy decisions at various levels.

National research assessment exercises: the effects of changing the rules of the game during the game

National research evaluation exercises provide a comparative measure of research performance of the nation’s institutions, and as such represent a tool for stimulating research productivity, particularly if the results are used to inform selective funding by government. While a school of thought welcomes frequent changes in evaluation criteria in order to prevent the subjects evaluated from adopting opportunistic behaviors, it is evident that the “rules of the game” should above all be functional towards policy objectives, and therefore be known with adequate forewarning prior to the evaluation period. Otherwise, the risk is that policy-makers will find themselves faced by a dilemma: should they reward universities that responded best to the criteria in effect at the outset of the observation period or those that result as best according to rules that emerged during or after the observation period? This study verifies if and to what extent some universities are penalized instead of rewarded for good behavior, in pursuit of the objectives of the “known” rules of the game, by comparing the research performances of Italian universities for the period of the nation’s next evaluation exercise (2004–2008): first as measured according to criteria available at the outset of the period and next according to those announced at the end of the period.