Search

Artikkelen gir oversikt over utviklingen i de nordiske landenes forskningssamarbeid med Kina og Russland siden 2004. Relasjonene undersøkes med det globale samarbeidet mellom alle land som kontekst. Datagrunnlaget er bibliografiske opplysninger om 32 millioner vitenskapelige artikler som er registrert i artikkelindeksen Web of Science. Kina er nå de nordiske landenes største samarbeidspartner i naturvitenskap og teknologi, men i andre fag er det relativt lite samarbeid med verdens største forskningsnasjon. Russland er en mye mindre forskningsnasjon som særlig Finland og Island har mye samarbeid med, men Danmark svært lite. For alle fem land er samarbeidet med Russland kraftig svekket etter invasjonen av Ukraina, og Russland er selv svekket som forskningsnasjon. Artikkelen gir to andre eksempler på at mellomstatlige konflikter kan redusere forskningssamarbeidet: Norge–Kina etter tildelingen av Nobels fredspris i 2010, og Kina–USA gjennom rivaliseringen i de senere årene. Det internasjonale forskningssamarbeidet er foreløpig ikke formet av forsvarsallianser, men nedgangen mellom USA og Kina viser at dette kan endre seg. Abstract in English: The Nordic countries, China, and Russia in global research collaboration The article provides an overview of the development in the Nordic countries’ research collaboration with China and Russia since 2004. The relationships are examined with the global collaboration between all countries as context. The analysis is based on bibliographic information from 32 million scientific articles registered in Web of Science. The analysis shows that the Nordic countries cooperate relatively little with the world’s largest scientific nation, China. Nevertheless, China has become the Nordic region’s largest cooperation partner in the subject areas where China is the largest and most important: the natural and engineering sciences. Russia is a much smaller scientific nation with which Finland and Iceland relatively frequently collaborate and Denmark more seldom. For all five countries, cooperation with Russia has weakened significantly in the last couple of years, and the country itself has declined as a scientific nation. The article provides two other examples of how interstate conflicts can influence research collaboration, Norway-China after the award of the Nobel peace prize in 2010, and the rivalry between China and USA in recent years. However, the general picture is that global collaboration in research so far is not shaped by defence alliances, but this situation may change.

AbstractJournal evaluation systems reflect how new insights are critically reviewed and published, and the prestige and impact of a discipline’s journals is a key metric in many research assessment, performance evaluation, and funding systems. With the expansion of China’s research and innovation systems and its rise as a major contributor to global innovation, journal evaluation has become an especially important issue. In this paper, we first describe the history and background of journal evaluation in China and then systematically introduce and compare the most currently influential journal lists and indexing services. These are the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), the Journal Partition Table (JPT), the AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI), the Chinese S&T Journal Citation Report (CJCR), “A Guide to the Core Journals of China” (GCJC), the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI), and the World Academic Journal Clout Index (WAJCI). Some other influential lists produced by government agencies, professional associations, and universities are also briefly introduced. Through the lens of these systems, we provide comprehensive coverage of the tradition and landscape of the journal evaluation system in China and the methods and practices of journal evaluation in China with some comparisons to how other countries assess and rank journals.

AbstractThe past 40 years have witnessed profound changes in the international competitiveness of Mainland China’s scientific research. Based on publication data from Chinese researchers in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) from the Web of Science (WoS), this study aims to provide a bird’s-eye view of how social science research in Mainland China has internationalized over the past four decades. The findings show that the number of social science articles published by Chinese authors in international journals has experienced a noticeable increase, and the collaboration networks of researchers from Mainland China have broadened, with the number of articles with a Chinese first author showing a strong upward trend. In addition, findings show that Chinese scholars are published in a wider range of journals, and there has been a steady increase in their appearance in higher impact journals (influenced in part by certain journals). Finally, different social science disciplines show various degrees of internationalization. This study provides a broad view from which to examine the internationalization process in Mainland China’s social science landscape in the last four decades, while also noting some of the possible explanations for these changes, thereby deepening our understanding of social science research stemming from the region.

AbstractDespite the centrality of disciplinary classifications in bibliometric analyses, it is not well known how the choice of disciplinary classification influences bibliometric representations of research in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). This is especially crucial when using data from national databases. Therefore, we examine the differences in the disciplinary profile of an article along with the absolute and relative number of articles across disciplines using five disciplinary classifications for journals. We use data on journal articles (2006–2015) from the national bibliographic databases VABB-SHW in Flanders (Belgium) and Cristin in Norway. Our study is based on pairwise comparisons of the local classifications used in these databases, the Web of Science subject categories, the Science-Metrix, and the ERIH PLUS journal classifications. For comparability, all classifications are mapped to the OECD Fields of Research and Development classification. The findings show that the choice of disciplinary classification can lead to over- or underestimation of the absolute number of publications per discipline. In contrast, if the focus is on the relative numbers, the choice of classification has practically no influence. These findings facilitate an informed choice of a disciplinary classification for journals in SSH when using data from national databases.

AbstractOpen access (OA) has mostly been studied by relying on publication data from selective international databases, notably Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. The aim of our study is to show that it is possible to achieve a national estimate of the number and share of OA based on institutional publication data providing a comprehensive coverage of the peer-reviewed outputs across fields, publication types, and languages. Our data consists of 48,177 journal, conference, and book publications from 14 Finnish universities in 2016–2017, including information about OA status, as self-reported by researchers and validated by data-collection personnel through their Current Research Information System (CRIS). We investigate the WoS, Scopus, and DOI coverage, as well as the share of OA outputs between different fields, publication types, languages, OA mechanisms (gold, hybrid, and green), and OA information sources (DOAJ, Bielefeld list, and Sherpa/Romeo). We also estimate the role of the largest international commercial publishers compared to the not-for-profit Finnish national publishers of journals and books. We conclude that institutional data, integrated at national and international level, provides one of the building blocks of a large-scale data infrastructure needed for comprehensive assessment and monitoring of OA across countries, for example at the European level.

This study compares publication pattern dynamics in the social sciences and humanities in five European countries. Three are Central and Eastern European countries that share a similar cultural and political heritage (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland). The other two are Flanders (Belgium) and Norway, representing Western Europe and the Nordics, respectively. We analysed 449,409 publications from 2013-2016 and found that, despite persisting differences between the two groups of countries across all disciplines, publication patterns in the Central and Eastern European countries are becoming more similar to those in their Western and Nordic counterparts. Articles from the Central and Eastern European countries are increasingly published in journals indexed in Web of Science and also in journals with the highest citation impacts. There are, however, clear differences between social science and humanities disciplines, which need to be considered in research evaluation and science policy.

Sammendrag Vi undersøker forskningen i studier av høyere utdanning i Norge ved å bruke data fra vitenskapelig publisering som er registrert i informasjonssystemet Cristin gjennom de seks årene 2011–2016. Med utgangspunkt i disse opplysningene spør vi: Hva er kjønnsbalansen og aldersgjennomsnittet i forskningsfeltet, sammenlignet med pedagogisk forskning generelt og med øvrig norsk forskning? Hvilke institusjoner bidrar særlig til feltet? Er feltet i vekst, relativt sett? Hva er fagprofilen i feltet, hvis vi ser på hvor forskerne ellers publiserer? Publiseres det mer internasjonalt, og er det mer internasjonalt samarbeid, enn i pedagogisk forskning generelt? Undersøkelsen gir også anledning til å se nærmere på 40-årsjubilanten Uniped, som utgir mer enn halvparten av de norske tidsskriftsartiklene som vi her regner til studier av høyere utdanning.

Model norweski stanowi próbę całościowego ujęcia recenzowanych publikacji naukowych we wszystkich obszarach wiedzy – z uwzględnieniem preferowanych typów publikacji i języków publikacji w naukach humanistycznych – za pomocą jednego ważonego wskaźnika, pozwalającego porównywać efekty badań naukowych wewnątrz różnych instytutów i wydziałów oraz pomiędzy instytucjami badawczymi. W artykule opisano główne składniki Modelu, metodę jego wdrożenia oraz efekty i doświadczenia trzech krajów wykorzystujących go, w których przeprowadzono jego ewaluację: Belgii (Flandrii), Danii i Norwegii. Zakończenie zawiera analizę Modelu z perspektywy nauk humanistycznych.

The scientific foundation for the criticism on the use of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in evaluations of individual researchers and their publications was laid between 1989 and 1997 in a series of articles by Per O. Seglen. His basic work has since influenced initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, and The Metric Tide review on the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Seglen studied the publications of only 16 senior biomedical scientists. We investigate whether Seglen's main findings still hold when using the same methods for a much larger group of Norwegian biomedical scientists with more than 18,000 publications. Our results support and add new insights to Seglen's basic work.