Search

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.

Unlike competitive higher education systems, non-competitive systems show relatively uniform distributions of top professors 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 professors. 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., Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1810.13234, arXiv:1810.13233, arXiv:arXiv:1810.13231, arXiv:1810.13281, arXiv:1810.12207

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.

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., Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1810.12853

There has been ample demonstration that bibliometrics is superior to peer-review for national research assessment exercises in the hard sciences. In this paper we examine the Italian case, taking the 2001-2003 university performance rankings list based on bibliometrics as benchmark. We compare the accuracy of the first national evaluation exercise, conducted entirely by peer-review, to other rankings lists prepared at zero cost, based on indicators indirectly linked to performance or available on the Internet. The results show that, for the hard sciences, the costs of conducting the Italian evaluation of research institutions could have been completely avoided.

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 verify 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 remarkably higher than average share of publications by new productives that are in co-authorship exclusively with colleagues from the same university.

In many countries culture, practice or regulations inhibit the co-presence of relatives within the university faculty. We test the legitimacy of such attitudes and provisions, investigating the phenomenon of nepotism in Italy, a nation with high rates of favoritism. We compare the individual research performance of "children" who have "parents" in the same university against that of the "non-children" with the same academic rank and seniority, in the same field. The results show non-significant differences in performance. Analyses of career advancement show that children's research performance is on average superior to that of their colleagues who did not advance. The study's findings do not rule out the existence of nepotism, which has been actually recorded in a low percentage of cases, but do not prove either the most serious presumed consequences of nepotism, namely that relatives who are poor performers are getting ahead of non-relatives who are better performers. In light of these results, many attitudes and norms concerning parental ties in academia should be reconsidered., Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1810.12207, arXiv:1810.13233

Underrepresentation of women in the academic system is a problem common to many countries, often associated with gender discrimination. In the Italian academic context in particular, favoritism is recognized as a diffuse phenomenon affecting hiring and career advancement. One of the questions that naturally arises is whether women who do assume decisional roles, having witnessed other phenomena of discrimination, would practice less favoritism than men in similar positions. Our analysis refers to the particular case of favoritism in the work of university selection committees responsible for career advancement. We observe a moderate positive association between competitions with expected outcomes and the fact the committee president is a woman. Although committees presided by women give more weight to scientific merit than those presided by men, favoritism still occurs. In fact, in the case the committee president is a woman, the single most important factor for the success of a candidate is joint research with the president; while in the case of male presidents, it is the years together in the same university., Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1810.12207

Many governments have placed priority on excellence in higher education as part of their policy agendas. Processes for recruitment and career advancement in universities thus have a critical role. The efficiency of faculty selection processes can be evaluated by comparing the subsequent performance of competition winners against that of the losers and the pre-existing staff of equal academic rank. Our study presents an empirical analysis concerning the recruitment procedures for associate professors in the Italian university system. The results of a bibliometric analysis of the hard science areas reveal that new associate professors are on average more productive than the incumbents. However a number of crucial concerns emerge, in particular concerning occurrence of non-winner candidates that are more productive than the winners over the subsequent triennium, and cases of winners that are completely unproductive. Beyond the implications for the Italian case, the analysis offers considerations for all decision-makers regarding the ex post evaluation of the efficiency of the recruitment process and the desirability of providing selection committees with bibliometric indicators in support of evaluation (i.e. informed peer review)., Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1810.12207

Accurate measurement of institutional research productivity should account for the real contribution of the research staff to the output produced in collaboration with other organizations. In the framework of bibliometric measurement, this implies accounting for both the number of co-authors and each individual's real contribution to scientific publications. Common practice in the life sciences is to indicate such contribution through the order of author names in the byline. In this work, we measure the distortion introduced to university-level bibliometric productivity rankings when the number of co-authors or their position in the byline is ignored. The field of observation consists of all Italian universities active in the life sciences (Biology and Medicine). The analysis is based on the research output of the university staff over the period 2004-2008. Based on the results, we recommend against the use of bibliometric indicators that ignore co-authorship and real contribution of each author to research outputs.

Ever more frequently, governments have decided to implement policy measures intended to foster and reward excellence in scientific research. This is in fact the intended purpose of national research assessment exercises. These are typically based on the analysis of the quality of the best research products; however a different approach to analysis and intervention is based on the measure of productivity of the individual scientists, meaning the overall impact of their entire scientific production over the period under observation. This work analyzes the convergence of the two approaches, asking if and to what measure the most productive scientists achieve highly-cited articles; or vice versa, what share of highly-cited articles is achieved by scientists that are "non-top" for productivity. To do this we use bibliometric indicators, applied to the 2004-2008 publications authored by academics of Italian universities and indexed in the Web of Science.

Productivity is the quintessential indicator of efficiency in any production system. It seems it has become a norm in bibliometrics to define research productivity as the number of publications per researcher, distinguishing it from impact. In this work we operationalize the economic concept of productivity for the specific context of research activity and show the limits of the commonly accepted definition. We propose then a measurable form of research productivity through the indicator "Fractional Scientific Strength (FSS)", in keeping with the microeconomic theory of production. We present the methodology for measure of FSS at various levels of analysis: individual, field, discipline, department, institution, region and nation. Finally, we compare the ranking lists of Italian universities by the two definitions of research productivity.

It is becoming ever more common to use bibliometric indicators to evaluate the performance of research institutions, however there is often a failure to recognize the limits and drawbacks of such indicators. Since performance measurement is aimed at supporting critical decisions by research administrators and policy makers, it is essential to carry out empirical testing of the robustness of the indicators used. In this work we examine the accuracy of the popular "h" and "g" indexes for measuring university research performance by comparing the ranking lists derived from their application to the ranking list from a third indicator that better meets the requirements for robust and reliable assessment of institutional productivity. The test population is all Italian universities in the hard sciences, observed over the period 2001-2005. The analysis quantifies the correlations between the three university rankings (by discipline) and the shifts that occur under changing indicators, to measure the distortion inherent in use of the h and g indexes and their comparative accuracy for assessing institutions.

Many nations are adopting higher education strategies that emphasize the development of elite universities able to compete at the international level in the attraction of skills and resources. Elite universities pursue excellence in all their disciplines and fields of action. The impression is that this does not occur in "non-competitive" education systems, and that instead, within single universities excellent disciplines will coexist with mediocre ones. To test this, the authors measure research productivity in the hard sciences for all Italian universities over the period 2004-2008 at the levels of the institution, their individual disciplines and fields within them. The results show that the distribution of excellent disciplines is not concentrated in a few universities: top universities show disciplines and fields that are often mediocre, while generally mediocre universities will often include top disciplines.

One of the critical issues in national research assessment exercises concerns the choice of whether to evaluate the entire scientific portfolio of the institutions or a subset composed of the best products. Under the second option, the capacities of the institutions to select the appropriate researchers and their best products (the UK case) or simply the best products of every researcher (the Italian case) becomes critical, both for purposes of correct assessment of the real quality of research in the institutions evaluated, and for the selective funding that follows. In this work, through case studies of three Italian universities, we analyze the efficiency of the product selection that is intended to maximize the universities' scores in the current national research assessment exercise, the results of which will be the basis for assigning an important share of public financing over the coming years.

There is a worldwide trend towards application of bibliometric research evaluation, in support of the needs of policy makers and research administrators. However the assumptions and limitations of bibliometric measurements suggest a probabilistic rather than the traditional deterministic approach to the assessment of research performance. The aim of this work is to propose a multivariate stochastic model for measuring the performance of individual scientists and to compare the results of its application with those arising from a deterministic approach. The dataset of the analysis covers the scientific production indexed in Web of Science for the 2006-2010 period, of over 900 Italian academic scientists working in two distinct fields of the life sciences.

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.

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.

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.

Nations with non-competitive higher education systems and with high levels of corruption, are more exposed to phenomena of discrimination and favoritism in faculty recruitment. Italy is a case in point, as shown by empirical studies, judicial reports and media attention. Governments have intervened repeatedly to reduce the problem, with scarce success. The 2010 reforms to the university recruitment system provided that access to the ranks of associate and full professor would now be possible only through an initial "scientific habilitation" to be awarded by sectorial committees of national experts. The objective of this work is to analyze the relationship of the recent habilitation procedure outcomes to the actual scientific merit of the various candidates, as well as to other variables that are explicative of possible practices of favoritism and discrimination. The analyses identify the presence of potential cases of discrimination and favoritism.

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, Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1810.12664

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 (HCAs) or by ratio of HCAs to total publications. Neither are indicators of efficiency. In the current work we propose an indicator of efficiency, the number of HCAs 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.

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.

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.

In this work we examine the relationship between research performance, age, and seniority in academic rank of full professors in the Italian academic system. Differently from a large part of the previous literature, our results generally show a negative monotonic relationship between age and research performance, in all the disciplines under analysis. We also highlight a positive relationship between seniority in rank and performance, occurring particularly in certain disciplines. While in Medicine, Biology and Chemistry this result could be explained by the "accumulative advantage" effect, in other disciplines, like Civil engineering and Pedagogy and Psychology, it could be due to the existence of a large performance differential between young and mature researchers, at the moment of the promotion to full professors. These results, witnessed both generally and at the level of the individual disciplines, offer useful insights for policy makers and academia administrators on the role of older professors.

The work applies the funnel plot methodology to measure and visualize uncertainty in the research performance of Italian universities in the science disciplines. The performance assessment is carried out at both discipline and overall university level. The findings reveal that for most universities the citation-based indicator used gives insufficient statistical evidence to infer that their research productivity is inferior or superior to the average. This general observation is one that we could indeed expect in a higher education system that is essentially non-competitive. The question is whether the introduction of uncertainty in performance reporting, while technically sound, could weaken institutional motivation to work towards continuous improvement.

The literature on the theme of gender differences in research performance indicates a quite evident gap in favor of men over women. Beyond the understanding of the factors that could be at the basis of this phenomenon, it is worthwhile understanding if it would be appropriate to conduct the evaluation per population in a manner distinguished by gender. In fact if there is some factor that structurally determines a penalization of performance by women researchers compared to men then the comparative evaluation of organizations' performance that does not take gender into account will lead to an advantage for those that employ more men, under parity in the capacities of their staffs. In this work we measure the differences of the performance and the rank of research institutions as observed when gender is taken into account compared to when it is ignored. The study population consists of all Italian universities and the performance measured in the hard sciences for the period 2006-2010.

This work examines whether the macroeconomic divide between northern and southern Italy is also present at the level of higher education. The analysis confirms that the research performance in the sciences of the professors in the south is on average less than that of the professors in the north, and that this gap does not show noticeable variations at the level of gender or academic rank. For the universities, the gap is still greater. The study analyzes some possible determinants of the gap, and provides some policy recommendations for its reduction.

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.

The objective of this research is to determine if the reference to a country in the title, keywords or abstract of a publication can influence its visibility (measured by the impact factor of the publishing journal) and citability (measured by the citations received). The study is based on Italian scientific production indexed in the Web of Science over the period 2004-2011. The analysis is conducted by comparing the values of four impact indicators for two subsets: i) the indexed publications with a country's name in the title, keywords or abstract; ii) the remainder of the population, with no country' name. The results obtained both at the general level and by subject category show that publications with a country name systematically receive lower impact values, with the exception of a limited number of subject categories, Also, the incidence of highly-cited articles is lower for the first subset.

The prediction of the long-term impact of a scientific article is challenging task, addressed by the bibliometrician through resorting to a proxy whose reliability increases with the breadth of the citation window. In the national research assessment exercises using metrics the citation window is necessarily short, but in some cases is sufficient to advise the use of simple citations. For the Italian VQR 2011-2014, the choice was instead made to adopt a linear weighted combination of citations and journal metric percentiles, with weights differentiated by discipline and year. Given the strategic importance of the exercise, whose results inform the allocation of a significant share of resources for the national academic system, we examined whether the predictive power of the proposed indicator is stronger than the simple citation count. The results show the opposite, for all discipline in the sciences and a citation window above two years.

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.

We investigate the question of how long top scientists retain their stardom. We observe the research performance of all Italian professors in the sciences over three consecutive four-year periods, between 2001 and 2012. The top scientists of the first period are identified on the basis of research productivity, and their performance is then tracked through time. The analyses demonstrate that more than a third of the nation's top scientists maintain this status over the three consecutive periods, with higher shares occurring in the life sciences and lower ones in engineering. Compared to males, females are less likely to maintain top status. There are also regional differences, among which top status is less likely to survive in southern Italy than in the north. Finally we investigate the longevity of unproductive professors, and then check whether the career progress of the top and unproductive scientists is aligned with their respective performances. The results appear to have implications for national policies on academic recruitment and advancement.

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.

In this work we analyze the combined effects of gender, age and academic rank on the propensity of individual scholars to diversify their scientific activity. The aspect of research diversification is measured along three main dimensions, namely its extent and intensity and the cognitive relatedness of the fields of diversification. We apply two regression models to the dataset of scientific output of all Italian professors in the sciences over the period 2004-2008. The aim is to understand how personal and organizational traits can influence individual behaviors in terms of research diversification. Among other considerations, our findings urge caution in identifying research diversification as a co-determinant of the gender productivity gap between males and females.

This work explores the distribution of citations for the publications of top scientists. A first objective is to find out whether the 80-20 Pareto rule applies, that is if 80% of the citations to a top scientist's work concern 20% of their publications. Observing that the rule does not apply, we also measure the dispersion of the citation distribution by means of the Gini coefficient. Further, we investigate the question of what share of a top scientist' publications go uncited. Finally, we study the relation between the dispersion of the citation distribution and the share of uncited publications. As well as the overall level, the analyses are carried out at the field and discipline level, to assess differences across them.

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.

The response by Benedetto, Checchi, Graziosi & Malgarini (2017) (hereafter "BCG&M"), past and current members of the Italian Agency for Evaluation of University and Research Systems (ANVUR), to Franceschini and Maisano's ("F&M") article (2017), inevitably draws us into the debate. BCG&M in fact complain "that almost all criticisms to the evaluation procedures adopted in the two Italian research assessments VQR 2004-2010 and 2011-2014 limit themselves to criticize the procedures without proposing anything new and more apt to the scope". Since it is us who raised most criticisms in the literature, we welcome this opportunity to retrace our vainly "constructive" recommendations, made with the hope of contributing to assessments of the Italian research system more in line with the state of the art in scientometrics. We see it as equally interesting to confront the problem of the failure of knowledge transfer from R&D (scholars) to engineering and production (ANVUR's practitioners) in the Italian VQRs. We will provide a few notes to help the reader understand the context for this failure. We hope that these, together with our more specific comments, will also assist in communicating the reasons for the level of scientometric competence expressed in BCG&M's heated response to F&M's criticism.

The present paper takes its place in the stream of studies that analyze the effect of interdisciplinarity on the impact of research output. Unlike previous studies, in this study the interdisciplinarity of the publications is not inferred through their citing or cited references, but rather by identifying the authors' designated fields of research. For this we draw on the scientific classification of Italian academics, and their publications as indexed in the WoS over a five-year period (2004-2008). We divide the publications in three subsets on the basis the nature of co-authorship: those papers coauthored with academics from different fields, which show high intensity of inter-field collaboration ("specific" collaboration, occurring in 110 pairings of fields); those papers coauthored with academics who are simply from different "non-specific" fields; and finally co-authorships within a single field. We then compare the citations of the papers and the impact factor of the publishing journals between the three subsets. The results show significant differences, generally in favor of the interdisciplinary authorships, in only one third (or slightly more) of the cases. The analysis provides the value of the median differences for each pair of publication subsets.

This work provides an in-depth analysis of the relation between the different types of collaboration and research productivity, showing how both are influenced by some personal and organizational variables. By applying different cross-lagged panel models, we are able to analyze the relationship among research productivity, collaboration and their determinants. In particular, we show that only collaboration at intramural and domestic level has a positive effect on research productivity. Differently, all the forms of collaboration are positively affected by research productivity. The results can favor the reexamination of the theories related to these issues, and inform policies that would be more suited to their management.

This work verifies whether research diversification by a scientist is in some measure related to their collaboration with multidisciplinary teams. The analysis considers the publications achieved by 5300 Italian academics in the sciences over the period 2004-2008. The findings show that a scientist's outputs resulting from research diversification are more often than not the result of collaborations with multidisciplinary teams. The effect becomes more pronounced with larger and particularly with more diversified teams. This phenomenon is observed both at the overall level and for the disciplinary macro-areas.

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.

In this work we investigate the determinants of professors' career advancement in Italian universities. From the analyses, it emerges that the fundamental determinant of an academic candidate's success is not scientific merit, but rather the number of years that the candidate has belonged to the same university as the selection committee president. Where applicants have participated in research work with the president, their probability of success also increases significantly. The factors of the years of service and occurrence of joint research for the other commission members also have an effect, however of lesser weight. The specific phenomenon of nepotism, although it exists, seems less important. The scientific quality of the commission members has negligible effect on the expected outcome of the competition, and even more so the geographic location of the university calling for the competition.

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.