Search

Many studies on research productivity and performance suggest that men consistently outperform women. However, women and men are spread unevenly throughout the academy both horizontally (e.g., by scientific field) and vertically (e.g., by academic position), suggesting that aggregate numbers (comparing all men with all women) may reflect the different publication practices in different corners of the academy rather than gender per se. We use Norwegian bibliometric data to examine how the "what" (which publication practices are measured) and the "who" (how the population sample is disaggregated) matter in assessing apparent gender differences among academics in Norway. We investigate four clusters of indicators related to publication volume, publication type, authorship, and impact or quality (12 indicators in total) and explore how disaggregating the population by scientific field, institutional affiliation, academic position, and age changes the gender gaps that appear at the aggregate level. For most (but not all) indicators, we find that gender differences disappear or are strongly reduced after disaggregation. This suggests a composition effect, whereby apparent gender differences in productivity can to a considerable degree be ascribed to the composition of the group examined and the different publication practices common to specific groups. We argue that aggregate figures can exaggerate some gender disparities while obscuring others. Our study illustrates the situated nature of research productivity and the importance of comparing men and women within similar academic positions or scientific fields--of comparing apples with apples--when using bibliometric indicators to identify gender disparities in research productivity.

Many studies on research productivity and performance suggest that men consistently outperform women. However, women and men are spread unevenly throughout the academy both horizontally (e.g., by scientific field) and vertically (e.g., by academic position), suggesting that aggregate numbers (comparing all men with all women) may reflect the different publication practices in different corners of the academy rather than gender per se. We use Norwegian bibliometric data to examine how the 'what' (which publication practices are measured) and the 'who' (how the population sample is disaggregated) matter in assessing apparent gender differences among academics in Norway. We investigate four clusters of indicators related to publication volume, publication type, authorship, and impact or quality (12 indicators in total) and explore how disaggregating the population by scientific field, institutional affiliation, academic position, and age changes the gender gaps that appear at the aggregate level. For most (but not all) indicators, we find that gender differences disappear or are strongly reduced after disaggregation. This suggests a composition effect, whereby apparent gender differences in productivity can to a considerable degree be ascribed to the composition of the group examined and the different publication practices common to specific groups. We argue that aggregate figures can exaggerate some gender disparities while obscuring others. Our study illustrates the situated nature of research productivity and the importance of comparing men and women within similar academic positions or scientific fields-of comparing apples with apples-when using bibliometric indicators to identify gender disparities in research productivity., Author(s): Lynn P. Nygaard [sup.1] , Dag W. Aksnes [sup.2] , Fredrik Niclas Piro [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.425244.1, 0000 0001 1088 4063, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), , Oslo, [...]

Public funding is believed to play an important role in the development of science and technology. However, whether public funding and, in particular, competitive funding from public agencies actually helps to increase scientific output (i.e. publications) remains a matter of debate. By analysing a dataset of co-publications between China and the EU and a dataset of joint project collaborations in European Framework Programs for Research and Innovation [FP7 and Horizon 2020 (H2020)], we investigate whether different public funding agencies' competitive assets have different impact on the volume of publication output. Our results support the hypotheses that competitively funded research output varies by funding sources, so that a high level of funding does not necessarily lead to high scientific output. Our results show that FP7/H2020 funded projects do not have a positive contribution to the output of joint publications between China and the EU. Interestingly, cooperation in the form of jointly writing proposals to these EU programmes, especially when they are not granted by the European Commission, can contribute significantly to joint scientific publications in a later stage. This applies in particular to cases where funding from China is involved. Our findings highlight the key role that funding agencies play in influencing research behaviour. Our results indicate that Chinese funding triggers a high number of publications, whereas research funded by the EU does so to a much lower extent, arguably due to the EU's strong focus on social impact and its funding schemes as tools to promote European integration.

Why some countries are more successful than others at securing European research and innovation grants is a question that has recently received significant attention in the research and policy communities. This article helps answer this question by investigating the role of firms in securing financial returns from EU Framework Programmes. More specifically, it explores how three firm characteristics – size, industrial sector, and country – can lead to increased participation in and larger grants from EU projects. The analysis is carried out using logistic and linear regressions on a combined data set consisting of data on Framework Programmes participation and firm characteristics. The analysis presents results for firms from four Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – and their involvement in Horizon 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public funding is believed to play an important role in the development of science and technology. However, whether public funding and, in particular, competitive funding from public agencies actually helps to increase scientific output (i.e. publications) remains a matter of debate. By analysing a dataset of co-publications between China and the EU and a dataset of joint project collaborations in European Framework Programs for Research and Innovation [FP7 and Horizon 2020 (H2020)], we investigate whether different public funding agencies' competitive assets have different impact on the volume of publication output. Our results support the hypotheses that competitively funded research output varies by funding sources, so that a high level of funding does not necessarily lead to high scientific output. Our results show that FP7/H2020 funded projects do not have a positive contribution to the output of joint publications between China and the EU. Interestingly, cooperation in the form of jointly writing proposals to these EU programmes, especially when they are not granted by the European Commission, can contribute significantly to joint scientific publications in a later stage. This applies in particular to cases where funding from China is involved. Our findings highlight the key role that funding agencies play in influencing research behaviour. Our results indicate that Chinese funding triggers a high number of publications, whereas research funded by the EU does so to a much lower extent, arguably due to the EU's strong focus on social impact and its funding schemes as tools to promote European integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study objective: To study the associations between neighbourhood level violence/fear of violence and physical activity among elderly people, accounting for somatic health. Design: Self reported data from the Oslo health study, a cross sectional study conducted in 2000, were linked with sociodemographic and social security data from Statistics Norway. A multilevel regression analysis was conducted by MIwiN using contextual level variables provided by the Oslo City Council. Setting: Oslo, Norway. Participants: 3499 inhabitants aged 74/5 (53.2% of all invitees). Main results: 20.5% of the elderly were physically active less than one hour a week. Somatic health was clearly associated with physical activity among both men and women. Neighbourhood level violence was associated with physical activity only for men, while fear of violence was only associated with physical activity for women. Differences in somatic health did not explain differences in physical activity between neighbourhoods. These differences were explained by socioeconomic variables, and neighbourhood level violence/fear of violence. Conclusions: In a sample of presumably healthy 75/76 year olds in Oslo, the associations between neighbourhood level violence and physical activity (among men), and fear of violence and physical activity (among women), are of the same sizes as those between somatic health and physical activity. These two dimensions of violence have, in contrast with somatic health, an explanatory function in exploring differences in physical activity between neighbourhoods in Oslo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The citation frequency of a publication is often interpreted as an expression of its scientific impact. Previous citation analyses of Norwegian medical research have either focused on universities and university hospitals or on subject areas at the national level. Such analyses have paid little attention to other health enterprises, despite a strong increase in their research activity during the last decade., Material and Method: For all health enterprises with more than 25 publications in the Web of Science during the period 2005-2011 we have calculated field normalized citation indexes at the institution and subject levels., Results: On the whole, research undertaken by the health enterprises is frequently cited, and some medium-sized health enterprises stand out in terms of their high average citation indexes: Helse Stavanger Health Enterprise, Diakonhjemmet Hospital and Helse Nord-Trøndelag Health Enterprise, although Oslo University Hospital Health Enterprise and Helse Bergen Health Enterprise account for more than half of the most cited articles., Interpretation: In citation analyses at the aggregated level, highly and infrequently cited research groups/departments may balance each other. This appears to be the case in the largest health enterprises. Some medium-sized health enterprises that have a more concentrated research portfolio will thus accumulate higher average citation indexes than the largest university hospitals.