Search

• We test the lack of opportunistic behavior by universities floowing the Italian VQR. • VQR penalized university performance if professors resulted unproductive. • Universities could reduce penalization favoring gift authorships. • New productives show a higher than average share of intramural publications. • Nevertheless opportunistic behavior by universities does not seem to take place. This study inserts in the stream of research on the perverse effects that PBRF systems can induce in the subjects evaluated. The authors' opinion is that more often than not, it is the doubtful scientific basis of the evaluation criteria that leave room for opportunistic behaviors. The work examines the 2004–2010 Italian national research assessment (VQR) to test the lack of possible opportunistic behavior by universities in order to limit the penalization of their performance (and funding) due to the presence of scientifically unproductive professors in faculty. In particular, institutions may have favored "gift authorship" practices. The analysis thus focuses on the output of professors who were unproductive in the VQR publication window, but became productive ("new productives") in the following five years. A number of universities show a higher than average share of publications by new productives that are in co-authorship exclusively with colleagues from the same university. Although this might be thought to reflect opportunistic behavior by universities, the empirical evidence does not support this assumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We study the impact of research collaboration on the character of resulting publications. • Specialized publications more frequently the fruit of international collaboration. • Domestic collaborations are more likely associated with diversified research. • The number of co-authors does not significantly affect the trait of publications. • Exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines. The present work investigates the relations between amplitude and type of collaboration (intramural, extramural domestic or international) and output of specialized versus diversified research. By specialized or diversified research, we mean within or beyond the author's dominant research topic. The field of observation is the scientific production over five years from about 23,500 academics. The analyses are conducted at the aggregate and disciplinary level. The results lead to the conclusion that in general, the output of diversified research is no more frequently the fruit of collaboration than is specialized research. At the level of the particular collaboration types, international collaborations weakly underlie the specialized kind of research output; on the contrary, extramural domestic and intramural collaborations are weakly associated with diversified research. While the weakness of association remains, exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Mendeley readership distributions seem to share similar shapes across fields. • The CSS analysis confirm the similarity of shapes of readership distributions. • This implies the possibility for readerships to be rescaled to a universal form. • The rescaling appears effective for recent publications also. • Nonetheless, right tails often deviates from the common and universal form. Altmetrics promise useful support for assessing the impact of scientific works, including beyond the scholarly community and with very limited citation windows. Unfortunately, altmetrics scores are currently available only for recent articles and cannot be used as covariates in predicting long term impact of publications. However, the study of their statistical properties is a subject of evident interest to scientometricians. Applying the same approaches used in the literature to assess the universality of citation distributions, the intention here is to test whether the universal distribution also holds for Mendeley readerships. Results of the analysis carried out on a sample of publications randomly extracted from the Web of Science confirm that readerships seem to share similar shapes across fields and can be rescaled to a common and universal form. Such rescaling results as not particularly effective on the right tails. In other regions, rescaling causes a good collapse of field specific distributions, even for very recent publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We propose and apply a model to value citations by the impact of the citing articles. • Citations have value from 1 (if from uncited articles) to 2 (if from highest cited articles). • The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count. • The new indicator shows greater sensitivity when used to identify top-cited papers. Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004–2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater "sensitivity" when used to identify the highly-cited papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • We propose an approach to set up a country's "Balance of Knowledge Flows" (BKF). • The BKF records the trade of knowledge across countries. • Knowledge produced in a country is measured through its publications. • Outflows of knowledge are measured through citations by foreing countries. • The BKF can be included in yearly reports of science and technology indicators. Abstract In analogy to the technology balance of payments, in this paper we propose a possible way to set up a "balance of knowledge flows" (BKF), recording world flows of knowledge within the scientific community. Adopting a pure bibliometric approach, the "knowledge" traced in the BKF is that produced and exchanged by the scientific community by means of publications and relevant citations. A description of the theoretical foundation of such a tool is presented together with its empirical testing over the scientific production of four different countries. The BKF can be part of yearly reports of science and technology indicators, aimed at informing research policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • This study investigates the convergence of two bibliometric approaches to the measurement of interdisciplinary research. • The above general tendency varies across disciplines, but noticeable exceptions are found at individual paper level. • The diversity of the reference list grows with the number of fields reflected in the authors' list and with the number of authors being equal the number of fields. • When fields reflected in the authors' list belong to different disciplines, the disparity in the reference list is accordingly higher. Abstract This study investigates the convergence of two bibliometric approaches to the measurement of interdisciplinary research: one based on analyzing disciplinary diversity in the reference list of publications, the other based on the disciplinary diversity of authors of publications. In particular we measure the variety, balance, disparity and integrated diversity index of, respectively, single-author, multi-author single-field, and multi-author multi-field publications. We find that, in general, the diversity of the reference list grows with the number of fields reflected in a paper's authors' list and, to a lesser extent, with the number of authors being equal the number of fields. Further, we find that when fields belonging to different disciplines are reflected in the authors' list, the disparity in the reference list is higher than in the case of fields belonging to the same discipline. However, this general tendency varies across disciplines, and noticeable exceptions are found at individual paper level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When a publication is cited it generates a benefit. Through the country affiliations of the citing authors, it is possible to work upwards, tracing the countries that benefit from results produced in a national research system. In this work we take the knowledge flow from Italy as an example. We develop a methodology for examination of how the knowledge flows vary across fields, in each beneficiary country. We also measure the field comparative advantage of countries in benefiting from Italian research. The results from this method can inform bilateral research collaboration policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior investigations have offered contrasting results on a troubling question: whether the alphabetical ordering of bylines confers citation advantages on those authors whose surnames put them first in the list. The previous studies analyzed the surname effect at publication level, i.e. whether papers with the first author early in the alphabet trigger more citations than papers with a first author late in the alphabet. We adopt instead a different approach, by analyzing the surname effect on citability at the individual level, i.e. whether authors with alphabetically earlier surnames result as being more cited. Examining the question at both the overall and discipline levels, the analysis finds no evidence whatsoever that alphabetically earlier surnames gain advantage. The same lack of evidence occurs for the subpopulation of scientists with very high publication rates, where alphabetical advantage might gain more ground. The field of observation consists of 14,467 scientists in the sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper provides an empirical examination of how research productivity distributions differ across scientific fields and disciplines. Productivity is measured using the FSS indicator, which embeds both quantity and impact of output. The population studied consists of over 31,000 scientists in 180 fields (10 aggregate disciplines) of a national research system. The Characteristic Scores and Scale technique is used to investigate the distribution patterns for the different fields and disciplines. Research productivity distributions are found to be asymmetrical at the field level, although the degree of skewness varies substantially among the fields within the aggregate disciplines. We also examine whether the field productivity distributions show a fractal nature, which reveals an exception more than a rule. Differently, for the disciplines, the partitions of the distributions show skewed patterns that are highly similar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a previous article of ours, we explained the reasons why the MNCS and all similar per-publication citation indicators should not be used to measure research performance, whereas efficiency indicators (output to input) such as the FSS are valid indicators of performance. The problem frequently indicated in measuring efficiency indicators lies in the availability of input data. If we accept that such data are inaccessible, and instead resort to per-publication citation indicators, the question arises as to what extent institution performance rankings by MNCS are different from those by FSS (and so what effects such results could have on policy-makers, managers and other users of the rankings). Contrasting the 2008–2012 performance by MNCS and FSS of Italian universities in the Sciences, we try to answer that question at field, discipline, and overall university level. We present the descriptive statistics of the shifts in rank, and the correlations of both scores and ranks. The analysis reveals strong correlations in many fields but weak correlations in others. The extent of rank shifts is never negligible: a number of universities shift from top to non-top quartile ranks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The arguments presented demonstrate that the Mean Normalized Citation Score (MNCS) and other size-independent indicators based on the ratio to publications are not indicators of research performance. The article provides examples of the distortions when rankings by MNCS are compared to those based on indicators of productivity. The authors propose recommendations for the scientometric community to switch to ranking by research efficiency, instead of MNCS and other size-independent indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability to attract and retain talented professors is a distinctive competence of world-class universities and a source of competitive advantage. The ratio of top scientists to academic staff could therefore be an indicator of the competitive strength of the universities. This work identifies the Italian top scientists in over 200 fields, by their research productivity. It then ranks the relative universities by the ratio of top scientists to overall faculty. Finally, it contrasts this list with the ranking list by average productivity of the overall faculty. The analysis is carried out at the field, discipline, and overall university levels. The paper also explores the secondary question of whether the ratio of top scientists to faculty is related to the size of the university. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose a method to measure the effectiveness of the recruitment and turnover of professors, in terms of their research performance. The method presented is applied to the case of Italian universities over the period 2008–2012. The work then analyses the correlation between the indicators of effectiveness used, and between the indicators and the universities’ overall research performance. In countries that conduct regular national assessment exercises, the evaluation of effectiveness in recruitment and turnover could complement the overall research assessments. In particular, monitoring such parameters could assist in deterring favoritism, in countries exposed to such practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical evidence shows that co-authored publications achieve higher visibility and impact. The aim of the current work is to test for the existence of a similar correlation for Italian publications. We also verify if such correlation differs: (i) by subject category and macro-area; (ii) by document type; (iii) over the course of time. The results confirm world-level evidence, showing a consistent and significant linear growth in the citability of a publication with number of co-authors, in almost all subject categories. The effects are more remarkable in the fields of Social Sciences and Art & Humanities than in the Sciences – a finding not so obvious scrutinizing previous studies. Moreover, our results partly disavow the positive association between number of authors and prestige of the journal, as measured by its impact factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research performance values are not certain. Performance indexes should therefore be accompanied by uncertainty measures, to establish whether the performance of a unit is truly outstanding and not the result of random fluctuations. In this work we focus on the evaluation of research institutions on the basis of average individual performance, where uncertainty is inversely related to the number of research staff. We utilize the funnel plot, a tool originally developed in meta-analysis, to measure and visualize the uncertainty in the performance values of research institutions. As an illustrative example, we apply the funnel plot to represent the uncertainty in the assessed research performance for Italian universities active in biochemistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the literature and on the Web we can readily find research excellence rankings for organizations and countries by either total number of highly-cited articles ( HCA s) or by ratio of HCA s to total publications. Neither are indicators of efficiency. In the current work we propose an indicator of efficiency, the number of HCA s per scientist, which can complement the productivity indicators based on impact of total output. We apply this indicator to measure excellence in the research of Italian universities as a whole, and in each field and discipline of the hard sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy-makers working at the national and regional levels could find the territorial mapping of research productivity by field to be useful in informing both research and industrial policy. Research-based private companies could also use such mapping for efficient selection in localizing R&D activities and university research collaborations. In this work we apply a bibliometric methodology for ranking by research productivity: (i) the fields of research for each territory (region and province); and (ii) the territories for each scientific field. The analysis is based on the 2008–2012 scientific output indexed in the Web of Science, by all professors on staff at Italian universities. The population is over 36,000 professors, active in 192 fields and 9 disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessing the research performance of multi-disciplinary institutions, where scientists belong to many fields, requires that the evaluators plan how to aggregate the performance measures of the various fields. Two methods of aggregation are possible. These are based on: (a) the performance of the individual scientists or (b) the performance of the scientific fields present in the institution. The appropriate choice depends on the evaluation context and the objectives for the particular measure. The two methods bring about differences in both the performance scores and rankings. We quantify these differences through observation of the 2008–2012 scientific production of the entire research staff employed in the hard sciences in Italian universities (over 35,000 professors). Evaluators preparing an exercise must comprehend the differences illustrated, in order to correctly select the methodologies that will achieve the evaluation objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature on gender differences in research performance seems to suggest a gap between men and women, where the former outperform the latter. Whether one agrees with the different factors proposed to explain the phenomenon, it is worthwhile to verify if comparing the performance within each gender, rather than without distinction, gives significantly different ranking lists. If there were some structural factor that determined a penalty in performance of female researchers compared to their male peers, then under conditions of equal capacities of men and women, any comparative evaluations of individual performance that fail to account for gender differences would lead to distortion of the judgments in favor of men. In this work we measure the extent of differences in rank between the two methods of comparing performance in each field of the hard sciences: for professors in the Italian university system, we compare the distributions of research performance for men and women and subsequently the ranking lists with and without distinction by gender. The results are of interest for the optimization of efficient selection in formulation of recruitment, career advancement and incentive schemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National policies aimed at fostering the effectiveness of scientific systems should be based on reliable strategic analysis identifying strengths and weaknesses at field level. Approaches and indicators thus far proposed in the literature have not been completely satisfactory, since they fail to distinguish the effect of the size of production factors from that of their quality, particularly the quality of labor. The current work proposes an innovative "input-oriented" approach, which permits: (i) estimation of national research performance in a field and comparison to that of other nations, independent of the size of their respective research staffs; and, for fields of comparable intensity of publication, (ii) identification of the strong and weak research fields within a national research system on the basis of international comparison. In reference to the second objective, the proposed approach is applied to the Italian case, through the analysis of the 2006-2010 scientific production of the Italian academic system, in the 200 research fields where bibliometric analysis is meaningful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Who produces highly cited articles (HCAs)? [•] What is the correlation between research productivity and production of HCAs? [•] What is the distribution of HCAs per decile of researchers ranked per productivity? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] We analyze differences in collaboration patterns of male and female scientists. [•] The analysis relies on all WoS Italian publications between 2004 and 2008. [•] Co-authorship is used as a proxy of collaboration. [•] Intramural, extramural domestic and international collaborations are observed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• We propose a new approach to assess the scientific specialization of nations. • The approach is applied to map the scientific profiles of 199 countries in 254 fields. • We identify common and distinctive features of the countries. • A PCA allows us to cluster countries based on their specialization profile. The paper compares the scientific profiles of 199 countries relative to 254 subject categories, based on the impact of knowledge produced in each category, measured by the bibliometric indicator known as Total Fractional Impact (TFI). TFI is calculated on the basis of publications indexed in Web of Science (here over years 2010-2019). The approach taken overcomes some criticalities occurring with indicators previously proposed for the same purpose. With this approach, it is possible to: i) produce, for any country, a scientific specialization profile in correspondence with each subject category; ii) identify distinctive or common characteristics of individual countries or clusters of countries. The approach provides a new tool which may reveal useful for formulation of research policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The evaluation of performance at the individual level is of fundamental importance in informing management decisions. The literature provides various indicators and types of measures, however a problem that is still unresolved and little addressed is how to compare the performance of researchers working in different fields (apples to oranges). In this work we propose a solution, testing various scaling factors for the distributions of research productivity in 174 scientific fields. The analysis is based on the observation of scientific production by all Italian university researchers active in the hard sciences over the period 2004–2008, as indexed by the Web of Science. The most effective scaling factor is the average of the productivity distribution of researchers with productivity above zero. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The analysis of research collaboration by field is traditionally conducted beginning with the classification of the publications from the context of interest. In this work we propose an alternative approach based on the classification of the authors by field. The proposed method is more precise if the intended use is to provide a benchmark for the evaluation of individual propensity to collaborate. In the current study we apply the new methodology to all Italian university researchers in the hard sciences, measuring the propensity to collaborate for the various fields: in general, and specifically with intramural colleagues, extramural domestic and extramural foreign organizations. Using a simulation, we show that the results present substantial differences from those obtained through application of traditional approaches. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Accurate measurement of research productivity should take account of both the number of co-authors of every scientific work and of the different contributions of the individuals. For researchers in the life sciences, common practice is to indicate such contributions through position in the authors list. In this work, we measure the distortion introduced to bibliometric ranking lists for scientific productivity when the number of co-authors or their position in the list is ignored. The field of observation consists of all Italian university professors working in the life sciences, with scientific production examined over the period 2004–2008. The outcomes of the study lead to a recommendation against using indicators or evaluation methods that ignore the different authors’ contributions to the research results. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Unlike competitive higher education systems, non-competitive systems show relatively uniform distributions of top researchers and low performers among universities. In this study, we examine the impact of unproductive and top faculty members on overall research performance of the university they belong to. Furthermore, we analyze the potential relationship between research productivity of a university and the indexes of concentration of unproductive and top researchers. Research performance is evaluated using a bibliometric approach, through publications indexed on the Web of Science between 2004 and 2008. The set analyzed consists of all Italian universities active in the hard sciences. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Because of the variations in citation behavior across research fields, appropriate standardization must be applied as part of any bibliometric analysis of the productivity of individual scientists and research organizations. Such standardization involves scaling by some factor that characterizes the distribution of the citations of articles from the same year and subject category. In this work we conduct an analysis of the sensitivity of researchers’ productivity rankings to the scaling factor chosen to standardize their citations. To do this we first prepare the productivity rankings for all researchers (more than 30,000) operating in the hard sciences in Italy, over the period 2004–2008. We then measure the shifts in rankings caused by adopting scaling factors other than the particular factor that seems more effective for comparing the impact of publications in different fields: the citation average of the distribution of cited-only publications. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Over the past decade, national research evaluation exercises, traditionally conducted using the peer review method, have begun opening to bibliometric indicators. The citations received by a publication are assumed as proxy for its quality, but they require standardization prior to use in comparative evaluation of organizations or individual scientists: the citation data must be standardized, due to the varying citation behavior across research fields. The objective of this paper is to compare the effectiveness of the different methods of normalizing citations, in order to provide useful indications to research assessment practitioners. Simulating a typical national research assessment exercise, he analysis is conducted for all subject categories in the hard sciences and is based on the Thomson Reuters Science Citation Index-Expanded®. Comparisons show that the citations average is the most effective scaling parameter, when the average is based only on the publications actually cited. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: One of the critical issues in bibliometric research assessments is the time required to achieve maturity in citations. Citation counts can be considered a reliable proxy of the real impact of a work only if they are observed after sufficient time has passed from publication date. In the present work the authors investigate the effect of varying the time of citation observation on accuracy of productivity rankings for research institutions. Research productivity measures are calculated for all Italian universities active in the hard sciences in the 2001–2003 period, by individual field and discipline, with the time of the citation observation varying from 2004 to 2008. The objective is to support policy-makers in choosing a citation window that optimizes the tradeoff between accuracy of rankings and timeliness of the exercise. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In this work we investigate the sensitivity of individual researchers’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. The analysis is based on observation of research products for the 2001–2003 triennium for all research staff of Italian universities in the hard sciences, with the year of citation observation varying from 2004 to 2008. The 2008 rankings list is assumed the most accurate, as citations have had the longest time to accumulate and thus represent the best possible proxy of impact. By comparing the rankings lists from each year against the 2008 benchmark we provide policy-makers and research organization managers a measure of trade-off between timeliness of evaluation execution and accuracy of performance rankings. The results show that with variation in the evaluation citation window there are variable rates of inaccuracy across the disciplines of researchers. The inaccuracy results negligible for Physics, Biology and Medicine. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Higher education systems in competitive environments generally present top universities, that are able to attract top scientists, top students and public and private financing, with notable socio-economic benefits in their region. The same does not hold true for non-competitive systems. In this study we will measure the dispersion of research performance within and between universities in the Italian university system, typically non-competitive. We will also investigate the level of correlation that occurs between performance in research and its dispersion in universities. The findings may represent a first benchmark for similar studies in other nations. Furthermore, they lead to policy indications, questioning the effectiveness of selective funding of universities based on national research assessment exercises. The field of observation is composed of all Italian universities active in the hard sciences. Research performance will be evaluated using a bibliometric approach, through publications indexed in the Web of Science between 2004 and 2008. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: With the passage of more time from the original date of publication, the measure of the impact of scientific works using subsequent citation counts becomes more accurate. However the measurement of individual and organizational research productivity should ideally refer to a period with closing date just prior to the evaluation exercise. Therefore it is necessary to compromise between accuracy and timeliness. This work attempts to provide an order of magnitude for the error in measurement that occurs with decreasing the time lapse between date of publication and citation count. The analysis is conducted by scientific discipline on the basis of publications indexed in the Thomson Reuters Italian National Citation Report. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The current work proposes an application of DEA methodology for measurement of technical and allocative efficiency of university research activity. The analysis is based on bibliometric data from the Italian university system for the five-year period 2004–2008. Technical and allocative efficiency is measured with input being considered as a university''s research staff, classified according to academic rank, and with output considered as the field-standardized impact of the research product realized by these staff. The analysis is applied to all scientific disciplines of the so-called hard sciences, and conducted at subfield level, thus at a greater level of detail than ever before achieved in national-scale research assessments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The practice of collaboration, and particularly international collaboration, is becoming ever more widespread in scientific research, and is likewise receiving greater interest and stimulus from policy-makers. However, the relation between research performance and degree of internationalization at the level of single researchers still presents unresolved questions. The present work, through a bibliometric analysis of the entire Italian university population working in the hard sciences over the period 2001–2005, seeks to answer some of these questions. The results show that the researchers with top performance with respect to their national colleagues are also those who collaborate more abroad, but that the reverse is not always true. Also, interesting differences emerge at the sectorial level. Finally, the effect of the nation involved in the international partnership plays a role that should not be ignored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We observe the self-citation behavior of over 15,000 professors. • We control for number of citable papers, (international) co-authors, specialization. • Following citation-based incentives, self-citations per paper increased by 9.5%. • Increment is common, with diverse magnitude, to all disciplines and academic ranks. • Over 41% of professors have not increased their self-citation rates. We investigate the changes in the self-citation behavior of Italian professors following the introduction of a citation-based incentive scheme, for national accreditation to academic appointments. Previous contributions on self-citation behavior have either focused on small samples or relied on simple models, not controlling for enough confounding factors. The present work adopts a complex statistics model implemented on bibliometric individual data for over 15,000 Italian professors. Controlling for a number of covariates (number of citable papers published by the author; presence of international authors; number of co-authors; degree of the professor's specialization), the average increase in the number of self-citations per paper following introduction of the national scientific accreditation (ASN) is of 9.5%. The increase is common to all disciplines and academic ranks, albeit with diverse magnitude. Moreover, the increase is sensitive to the relative incentive, depending on the status of the scholar with respect to the ASN. A further analysis shows that there is much heterogeneity in the individual patterns of self-citing behavior, albeit with very few outliers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We investigate the scientific impact of Italian private research as compared to public research. • We also delve into the relation between different types of research collaboration and impact of resulting publications. • We examine Italian 2010–2017 publications indexed in WoS. • 70% of publications by the Italian private sector are in collaboration public research institutions. • Industry only publications show a lower impact than that recorded for public only publications. • Public-private joint research leads to publications of greater impact. Literature about the scholarly impact of scientific research offers very few contributions on private sector research, and the comparison with public sector. In this work, we try to fill this gap examining the citation-based impact of Italian 2010–2017 publications distinguishing authorship by the private sector from the public sector. In particular, we investigate the relation between different forms of collaboration and impact: how intra-sector private publications compare to public, and how private-public joint publications compare to intra-sector extramural collaborations. Finally, we assess the different effect of international collaboration on private and public research impact, and whether there occur differences across research fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We analyse the research performance of 36,000 Italian and Norwegian professors. • We apply an output to input indicator of research performance, the FSS. • We find that men outperform women across countries, fields and academic ranks. • Performance differences can be largely explained by the top 10 % professors. • Possible biases intrinsic in quantitative performance indicators are discussed. In this study, the scientific performance of Italian and Norwegian university professors is analysed using bibliometric indicators. The study is based on over 36,000 individuals and their publication output during the period 2011–2015. Applying a multidimensional indicator in which several aspects of the research performance are captured, we find large differences in the performance of men and women. These gender differences are evident across all analysed levels, such as country, field, and academic position. However, most of the gender differences can be explained by the tails of the distributions—in particular, there is a much higher proportion of men among the top 10 % performing scientists. For the remaining 90 % of the population, the gender differences are practically non-existent. The results of the two countries, which differ in terms of the societal role of women, are contrasting. Further, we discuss possible biases that are intrinsic in quantitative performance indicators, which might disfavour female researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Totally domestic publications are more cited by totally domestic publications • Prevalently international publications are more cited by totally international ones • Findings at area level align with those at overall levels, with some differences • Excluding self-citations, the association weakens, especially in some disciplines The growing complexity of scientific challenges demands increasingly intense research collaboration, both domestic and international. The resulting trend affects not only the modes of producing new knowledge, but also the way it is disseminated within scientific communities. This paper analyses the relationship between the "degree of internationalization" of a country's scientific production and that of the relevant citing publications. The empirical analysis is based on 2010-2012 Italian publications. Findings show: i) the probability of being cited increases with the degree of internationalization of the research team; ii) totally domestic research teams tend to cite to a greater extent totally domestic publications; iii) vice versa, publications resulting from international collaborations tend to be more cited by totally foreign publications rather than by publications including domestic authors. These results emerge both at overall and at discipline level. Findings might inform research policies geared towards internationalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We studied the variation over time of the geographic proximity effect on knowledge flows. • Flows are associated to citations exchanged between scientific publications. • We analyze world publications citing 2010–2012 Italian publications in the WoS. • Gravity models are used to control for sizes and relevant cognitive proximity. • The analysis, overall and at discipline level, both includes and excludes self-citations. This work analyzes the variation over time of the effect of geographic distance on knowledge flows. The flows are measured through the citations exchanged between scientific publications, including and excluding self-citations. To calculate geographic distances between citing and cited publication, each publication is associated with a "prevailing" territory, according to the authors' affiliations. We then apply a gravity model to account for the research size of the territories, in terms of cognitive proximity of citing-cited publications. The field of observation is the 2010–2017 world publications citing the 2010–2012 Italian publications, as indexed in the Web of Science. The results show that in domestic knowledge flows, geographic proximity remains an influential factor through time, although with differences among disciplines and trends of attenuating effects. Finally, we replicate the analyses of knowledge flows but with the exclusion of self-citations: in this manner the effect of geographic proximity seems reduced, particularly at the national scale, but the differences (with vs without self-citations) lessen through time. As shown in previous works, the effect of distance on continental flows is modest (imperceptible for intercontinental flows), yet here too time has some influence, including concerning exclusion of self-citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We compare research productivity of Italian and Norwegian professors/universities in 2011–2015. • A common field classification scheme of professors of both countries is illustrated and applied. • Results show similar average performances, but noticeable differences in the distributions. • Norway outperforms Italy in Mathematics and Earth and Space Sciences. • Italy outperforms Norway in Biomedical Research and Engineering. This is the first ever attempt of application in a country other than Italy of the output-to-input indicator FSS, to assess and compare the research performance of professors and universities, within and between countries. A special attention has been devoted to the presentation of the methodology developed to set up a common field classification scheme of professors, and to overcome the limited availability of comparable input data. Results of the comparison between countries, carried out in the 2011–2015 period, show similar average performances of professors, but noticeable differences in the distributions, whereby Norwegian professors are more concentrated in the tails. Norway shows notable higher performance in Mathematics and Earth and Space Sciences, while Italy in Biomedical Research and Engineering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We analyse the diffusion of knowledge produced in Italy in the period 2010–2012. • We assign the prevalent territory of an article on the basis of the authors' affiliations. • Geographic distance continues to play a role in the process of knowledge flows. • It is significant at the national level, and not negligible at the continental level. • It is completely irrelevant at the intercontinental level. This paper analyses the influence of geographic distance on knowledge flows, measured through citations to scientific publications. Previous works using the same approach are limited to single disciplines. In this study, we analyse the Italian scientific production in all disciplines matured in the period 2010–2012. To calculate the geographic distances between citing and cited publications, each one is associated with a "prevalent" territory on the basis of the authors' affiliations. The results of the application of a gravity model, estimated using ordinary least squares regression, show that despite the spread of IT, geographic distance continues to be an influential factor in the process of knowledge flows between territories. In particular, the analysis reveals that the effect of geographic distance on knowledge flows is significant at the national level, not negligible at the continental level, but completely irrelevant at the intercontinental level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We introduce a novel input-output approach for measuring field performance. • We apply the methodology to identify strong and weak research fields in Italy. • The methodology can support the formulation of national research policies. The formulation of national research policies would benefit greatly from reliable strategic analysis of the scientific infrastructure, aimed at identifying the relevant strengths and weaknesses at field level. Bibliometric methodologies thus far proposed in the literature are not completely satisfactory. This work proposes a novel "output-to-input-oriented" approach, which permits identification of research strengths and weaknesses on the basis of the ratios of top scientists and highly cited articles to research expenditures in each field. The proposed approach is applied to the Italian academic system. 2012–2016 scientific publications are analyzed, in the 218 research fields where bibliometric assessment is appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]