We propose institutional mobility indicators based on researchers' mobility flows in 22 major fields of science across 1,130 Leiden Ranking institutions from 64 countries. We base our indicators on... Show moreWe propose institutional mobility indicators based on researchers' mobility flows in 22 major fields of science across 1,130 Leiden Ranking institutions from 64 countries. We base our indicators on data from the Dimensions database and Global Research Identifier Database. We use researchers' first and last affiliations to estimate the extent authors have moved across institutions as well as countries. For each institution, we quantify the shares of researchers with the same affiliation (insiders), those who came from another institution within the country (domestic outsiders), and those coming from a different country (foreign outsiders). Institutions in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe have the highest share of insiders, whereas institutions in Northern America and Western and Northern Europe have a higher share of foreign outsiders. Foreign outsiders are most common in small and wealthy countries. No disciplinary differences are observed, as captured by the field classification scheme of Dimensions. Show less
This paper presents a first attempt to operationalize the Global Traits, Experiences, Cognitions and Context (GTEC) framework proposed by Welch et al. (2018). This theoretical framework suggests... Show moreThis paper presents a first attempt to operationalize the Global Traits, Experiences, Cognitions and Context (GTEC) framework proposed by Welch et al. (2018). This theoretical framework suggests four dimensions to characterize and contextualize the scientific workforce based on: 1) traits and experience, 2) cognitions, 3) community and, 4) institutional context. We apply the GTEC Framework using different data sources to note the improvement in measurement from using multiple dimensions. We use a well-regarded survey funded by the National Science Foundation and supplement it with additional variables from three other sources. The purpose is twofold. On the one hand, we build on the GTEC framework as a means to show how it could be applied to future empirical analyses. On the other hand, it emphasizes current data gaps that could still hamper our understanding on this phenomenon. While the model developed here moves us past a dichotomous understanding of foreign-born or mobile, it still leaves room for improvement to fully understand the global scientist. Show less
Robinson-Garcia, N.; Arroyo-Machado, W.; Moed, H.F.; Torres-Salinas, D. 2018
The promotion of Open Science needs new metrics that encourage openness in scientific practices, and can help institutions to monitor it. In 2017, the European Commission (EC) created an Expert... Show moreThe promotion of Open Science needs new metrics that encourage openness in scientific practices, and can help institutions to monitor it. In 2017, the European Commission (EC) created an Expert Group with the task of informing the commission on the possibility of including altmetric indicators as potential metrics that could foster and monitor open science advancements, but it failed to show how these metrics can help to foster Open Science. The current paper analyses differences in altmetric scores between Green OA publications, Gold OA publications and non OA publications. The goal of the paper is to empirically study whether altmetric indicators reinforce Open Access practices regardless of the type of access. We report a preliminary analysis based on two Physics journals. Our results show that gold OA documents are best covered in Altmetric.com and receive higher mentions than documents with other types of access. This is especially troublesome in the case of green OA, as it reflects that altmetric indicators do promote a very specific type of access closely linked with the publishing industry. Show less
This study explores the international profiles in collaboration and mobility of countries included in the so-called “travel bans” implemented by US President Trump as executive order in 2017. The... Show moreThis study explores the international profiles in collaboration and mobility of countries included in the so-called “travel bans” implemented by US President Trump as executive order in 2017. The objective of this research is to analyze the exchange of knowledge between countries and the relative importance of specific countries in order to inform evidence-based science policy. The work serves as a proof-of-concept of the utility of asymmetry and affinity indexes for collaboration and mobility. Comparative analyses of these indicators can be useful for informing immigration policies and motivating collaboration and mobility relationships—emphasizing the importance of geographic and cultural similarities. Egocentric and relational perspectives are analyzed to provide various lenses on the importance of countries. Our analysis suggests that comparisons of collaboration and mobility from an affinity perspective can identify discrepancies between levels of collaboration and mobility. This approach can inform international immigration policies and, if extended, demonstrate potential partnerships at several levels of analysis (e.g., institutional, sectoral, state/province). Show less
In this article, we develop a method that uses altmetric data to analyse researchers’ interactions, as a way of mapping the contexts of potential societal impact. In the face of an increasing... Show moreIn this article, we develop a method that uses altmetric data to analyse researchers’ interactions, as a way of mapping the contexts of potential societal impact. In the face of an increasing policy demand for quantitative methodologies to assess societal impact, social media data (altmetrics) have been presented as a potential method to capture broader forms of impact. However, current altmetric indicators were extrapolated from traditional citation approaches and are seen as problematic for assessing societal impact. In contrast, established qualitative methodologies for societal impact assessment are based on interaction approaches. These argue that assessment should focus on mapping the contexts in which engagement among researchers and stakeholders takes place, as a means to understand the pathways to societal impact. Following these approaches, we propose to shift the use of altmetric data towards network analysis of researchers and stakeholders. We carry out two case studies, analysing researchers’ networks with Twitter data. The comparison illustrates the potential of Twitter networks to capture disparate degrees of policy engagement. We propose that this mapping method can be used as an input within broader methodologies in case studies of societal impact assessment. Show less
Mongeon, P.; Robinson-Garcia, N.; Jeng, W.; Costas, R. 2017
