Purpose:This study investigates whether publication-centric incentive systems,introduced through the National Scientific Accreditation(ASN:Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale)for professorships in Italy in 2012,contrib...Purpose:This study investigates whether publication-centric incentive systems,introduced through the National Scientific Accreditation(ASN:Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale)for professorships in Italy in 2012,contribute to adopting“salami publishing”strategies among Italian academics.Design/methodology/approach:A longitudinal bibliometric analysis was conducted on the publication records of over 25,000 Italian science professors to examine changes in publication output and the originality of their work following the implementation of the ASN.Findings:The analysis revealed a significant increase in publication output after the ASN’s introduction,along with a concurrent decline in the originality of publications.However,no evidence was found linking these trends to increased salami slicing practices among the observed researchers.Research limitations:Given the size of our observation field,we propose an innovative indirect approach based on the degree of originality of publications’bibliographies.We know that bibliographic coupling cannot capture salami publications per se,but only topically-related records.On the other hand,controlling for the author’s specialization level in the period,we believe that a higher level of bibliographic coupling in his scientific output can signal a change in his strategy of disseminating the results of his research.The relatively low R-squared values in our models(0.3-0.4)reflect the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation,revealing the presence of unmeasured factors influencing the outcomes,and future research should explore additional variables or alternative models that might account for a greater proportion of the variability.Despite this limitation,the significant predictors identified in our analysis provide valuable insights into the key factors driving the observed outcomes.Practical implications:The results of the study support those who argue that quantitative research assessment frameworks have had very positive effects and should not be dismissed,contrary to the claims of those evoking the occurrence of side effects that do not appear in the empirical analyses.Originality/value:This study provides empirical evidence on the impact of the ASN on publication behaviors in a huge micro-level dataset,contributing to the broader discourse on the effects of quantitative research assessments on academic publishing practices.展开更多
Purpose:Scholars face an unprecedented ever increasing demand for acting as reviewers for journals,recruitment and promotion committees,granting agencies,and research assessment agencies.Consequently,journal editors f...Purpose:Scholars face an unprecedented ever increasing demand for acting as reviewers for journals,recruitment and promotion committees,granting agencies,and research assessment agencies.Consequently,journal editors face an ever increasing scarcity of experts willing to act as reviewers.It is not infrequent that reviews diverge,which forces editors to recur to additional reviewers or make a final decision on their own.The purpose of the proposed bibliometric system is to support of editors’accept/reject decisions in such situations.Design/methodology/approach:We analyse nearly two million 2017 publications and their scholarly impact,measured by normalized citations.Based on theory and previous literature,we extrapolated the publication traits of text,byline,and bibliographic references expected to be associated with future citations.We then fitted a regression model with the outcome variable as the scholarly impact of the publication and the independent variables as the above non-scientific traits,controlling for fixed effects at the journal level.Findings:Non-scientific factors explained more than 26%of the paper’s impact,with slight variation across disciplines.On average,OA articles have a 7%greater impact than non-OA articles.A 1%increase in the number of references was associated with an average increase of 0.27%in impact.Higher-impact articles in the reference list,the number of authors and of countries in the byline,the article length,and the average impact of co-authors’past publications all show a positive association with the article’s impact.Female authors,authors from English-speaking countries,and the average age of the article’s references show instead a negative association.Research limitations:The selected non-scientific factors are the only observable and measurable ones to us,but we cannot rule out the presence of significant omitted variables.Using citations as a measure of impact has well-known limitations and overlooks other forms of scholarly influence.Additionally,the large dataset constrained us to one year’s global publications,preventing us from capturing and accounting for time effects.Practical implications:This study provides journal editors with a quantitative model that complements peer reviews,particularly when reviewer evaluations diverge.By incorporating non-scientific factors that significantly predict a paper’s future impact,editors can make more informed decisions,reduce reliance on additional reviewers,and improve the efficiency and fairness of the manuscript selection process.Originality/value:To the best of our knowledge,this study is the first one to specifically address the problem of supporting editors in any field in their decisions on submitted manuscripts with a quantitative model.Previous works have generally investigated the relationship between a few of the above publication traits and their impact or the agreement between peer-review and bibliometric evaluations of publications.展开更多
In the United States, emission regulations are enacted at a state level;individual states are allowed to define what methods they will use to mitigate their carbon emissions. The consequence of this is especially inte...In the United States, emission regulations are enacted at a state level;individual states are allowed to define what methods they will use to mitigate their carbon emissions. The consequence of this is especially interesting in the state of Texas where new legislation has created a “deregulated” electricity market in which end-users are capable of choosing their electricity provider and subsequently the type of electricity they wish to consume (generated by fossil fuels or renewable sources). In this paper we analyze the effects of carbon tax on the development of renewable generation capacity at the utility level while taking into account expected adoption of rooftop PV systems by individual consumers using agent based modeling techniques. Monte Carlo simulations show carbon abatement trends and proffer updated renewable portfolio standards at various levels of likelihood.展开更多
文摘Purpose:This study investigates whether publication-centric incentive systems,introduced through the National Scientific Accreditation(ASN:Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale)for professorships in Italy in 2012,contribute to adopting“salami publishing”strategies among Italian academics.Design/methodology/approach:A longitudinal bibliometric analysis was conducted on the publication records of over 25,000 Italian science professors to examine changes in publication output and the originality of their work following the implementation of the ASN.Findings:The analysis revealed a significant increase in publication output after the ASN’s introduction,along with a concurrent decline in the originality of publications.However,no evidence was found linking these trends to increased salami slicing practices among the observed researchers.Research limitations:Given the size of our observation field,we propose an innovative indirect approach based on the degree of originality of publications’bibliographies.We know that bibliographic coupling cannot capture salami publications per se,but only topically-related records.On the other hand,controlling for the author’s specialization level in the period,we believe that a higher level of bibliographic coupling in his scientific output can signal a change in his strategy of disseminating the results of his research.The relatively low R-squared values in our models(0.3-0.4)reflect the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation,revealing the presence of unmeasured factors influencing the outcomes,and future research should explore additional variables or alternative models that might account for a greater proportion of the variability.Despite this limitation,the significant predictors identified in our analysis provide valuable insights into the key factors driving the observed outcomes.Practical implications:The results of the study support those who argue that quantitative research assessment frameworks have had very positive effects and should not be dismissed,contrary to the claims of those evoking the occurrence of side effects that do not appear in the empirical analyses.Originality/value:This study provides empirical evidence on the impact of the ASN on publication behaviors in a huge micro-level dataset,contributing to the broader discourse on the effects of quantitative research assessments on academic publishing practices.
文摘Purpose:Scholars face an unprecedented ever increasing demand for acting as reviewers for journals,recruitment and promotion committees,granting agencies,and research assessment agencies.Consequently,journal editors face an ever increasing scarcity of experts willing to act as reviewers.It is not infrequent that reviews diverge,which forces editors to recur to additional reviewers or make a final decision on their own.The purpose of the proposed bibliometric system is to support of editors’accept/reject decisions in such situations.Design/methodology/approach:We analyse nearly two million 2017 publications and their scholarly impact,measured by normalized citations.Based on theory and previous literature,we extrapolated the publication traits of text,byline,and bibliographic references expected to be associated with future citations.We then fitted a regression model with the outcome variable as the scholarly impact of the publication and the independent variables as the above non-scientific traits,controlling for fixed effects at the journal level.Findings:Non-scientific factors explained more than 26%of the paper’s impact,with slight variation across disciplines.On average,OA articles have a 7%greater impact than non-OA articles.A 1%increase in the number of references was associated with an average increase of 0.27%in impact.Higher-impact articles in the reference list,the number of authors and of countries in the byline,the article length,and the average impact of co-authors’past publications all show a positive association with the article’s impact.Female authors,authors from English-speaking countries,and the average age of the article’s references show instead a negative association.Research limitations:The selected non-scientific factors are the only observable and measurable ones to us,but we cannot rule out the presence of significant omitted variables.Using citations as a measure of impact has well-known limitations and overlooks other forms of scholarly influence.Additionally,the large dataset constrained us to one year’s global publications,preventing us from capturing and accounting for time effects.Practical implications:This study provides journal editors with a quantitative model that complements peer reviews,particularly when reviewer evaluations diverge.By incorporating non-scientific factors that significantly predict a paper’s future impact,editors can make more informed decisions,reduce reliance on additional reviewers,and improve the efficiency and fairness of the manuscript selection process.Originality/value:To the best of our knowledge,this study is the first one to specifically address the problem of supporting editors in any field in their decisions on submitted manuscripts with a quantitative model.Previous works have generally investigated the relationship between a few of the above publication traits and their impact or the agreement between peer-review and bibliometric evaluations of publications.
文摘In the United States, emission regulations are enacted at a state level;individual states are allowed to define what methods they will use to mitigate their carbon emissions. The consequence of this is especially interesting in the state of Texas where new legislation has created a “deregulated” electricity market in which end-users are capable of choosing their electricity provider and subsequently the type of electricity they wish to consume (generated by fossil fuels or renewable sources). In this paper we analyze the effects of carbon tax on the development of renewable generation capacity at the utility level while taking into account expected adoption of rooftop PV systems by individual consumers using agent based modeling techniques. Monte Carlo simulations show carbon abatement trends and proffer updated renewable portfolio standards at various levels of likelihood.
