Search (184 results, page 1 of 10)

0.07185413 = product of:
  0.28741652 = sum of:
    0.28741652 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28741652 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38355064 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.05939403 = product of:
  0.23757613 = sum of:
    0.23757613 = sum of:
      0.15089217 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15089217 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04524064 = queryNorm
          0.6070458 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.086683966 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086683966 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04524064 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Arranged according to subjects the bibliography lists 79 references,mostly with terse abstracts.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.05230458 = product of:
  0.10460916 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
    0.018388446 = product of:
      0.036776893 = sum of:
        0.036776893 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036776893 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The causal relation between research and economic growth is of particular importance for political support of science and technology as well as for academic purposes. This article revisits the causal relationship between research articles published and economic growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for the period 1981-2011, using bootstrap panel causality analysis, which accounts for cross-section dependency and heterogeneity across countries. The article, by the use of the specific method and the choice of the country group, makes a contribution to the existing literature. Our empirical results support unidirectional causality running from research output (in terms of total number of articles published) to economic growth for the US, Finland, Hungary, and Mexico; the opposite causality from economic growth to research articles published for Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Israel, and Poland; and no causality for the rest of the countries. Our findings provide important policy implications for research policies and strategies for OECD countries.

Date

8. 7.2015 22:00:42

0.050295416 = product of:
  0.20118167 = sum of:
    0.20118167 = weight(_text_:policy in 6883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20118167 = score(doc=6883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.8293662 = fieldWeight in 6883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6883)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the quality of bibliometrics, informetrics and scientometrics research, intradisciplinary communication and science policy

0.046760794 = product of:
  0.09352159 = sum of:
    0.0718506 = weight(_text_:policy in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0718506 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.021670992 = product of:
      0.043341983 = sum of:
        0.043341983 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043341983 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.043587152 = product of:
  0.087174304 = sum of:
    0.0718506 = weight(_text_:policy in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0718506 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.015323706 = product of:
      0.030647412 = sum of:
        0.030647412 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030647412 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:02

0.037334666 = product of:
  0.14933866 = sum of:
    0.14933866 = weight(_text_:policy in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14933866 = score(doc=3574,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.6156448 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas.

0.035564233 = product of:
  0.14225693 = sum of:
    0.14225693 = weight(_text_:policy in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14225693 = score(doc=4259,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.5864505 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO

0.031112222 = product of:
  0.12444889 = sum of:
    0.12444889 = weight(_text_:policy in 3535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12444889 = score(doc=3535,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.5130373 = fieldWeight in 3535, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3535)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 1965, Price foresaw the day when a citation-based taxonomy of science and technology would be delineated and correspondingly used for science policy. A taxonomy needs to be comprehensive and accurate if it is to be useful for policy making, especially now that policy makers are utilizing citation-based indicators to evaluate people, institutions and laboratories. Determining the accuracy of a taxonomy, however, remains a challenge. Previous work on the accuracy of partition solutions is sparse, and the results of those studies, although useful, have not been definitive. In this study we compare the accuracies of topic-level taxonomies based on the clustering of documents using direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation. Using a set of new gold standards-articles with at least 100 references-we find that direct citation is better at concentrating references than either bibliographic coupling or co-citation. Using the assumption that higher concentrations of references denote more accurate clusters, direct citation thus provides a more accurate representation of the taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge than either bibliographic coupling or co-citation. We also find that discipline-level taxonomies based on journal schema are highly inaccurate compared to topic-level taxonomies, and recommend against their use.

0.030483626 = product of:
  0.1219345 = sum of:
    0.1219345 = weight(_text_:policy in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1219345 = score(doc=2299,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.50267184 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.

0.030178435 = product of:
  0.12071374 = sum of:
    0.12071374 = product of:
      0.24142748 = sum of:
        0.24142748 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 5468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24142748 = score(doc=5468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.97127336 = fieldWeight in 5468, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.028740238 = product of:
  0.11496095 = sum of:
    0.11496095 = weight(_text_:policy in 5058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11496095 = score(doc=5058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 5058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5058)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliometric standards are essential for comparative research. Asserts, however, that these standards can not be set by committee but must evolve through an ongoing debate. Suggests that the scientometric community needs a refereed forum more dedicated to methodological issues than policy matters in which the standards debate can prodeed in a focused and professional manner

0.028740238 = product of:
  0.11496095 = sum of:
    0.11496095 = weight(_text_:policy in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11496095 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since the 'Science Citation Index' emerged within the system of scientific communication in 1964, an intense controversy about its character has been raging: in what sense can citation analysis be trusted? This debate can be characterized as the confrontation of different perspectives on science. Discusses the citation representation of science: the way the citation creates a new reality of as well as in the world of science; the main features of this reality; and some implications for science and science policy

0.028740238 = product of:
  0.11496095 = sum of:
    0.11496095 = weight(_text_:policy in 2076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11496095 = score(doc=2076,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 2076, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2076)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02640613 = product of:
  0.10562452 = sum of:
    0.10562452 = product of:
      0.21124904 = sum of:
        0.21124904 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21124904 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.8498642 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02640613 = product of:
  0.10562452 = sum of:
    0.10562452 = product of:
      0.21124904 = sum of:
        0.21124904 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21124904 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.8498642 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02640613 = product of:
  0.10562452 = sum of:
    0.10562452 = product of:
      0.21124904 = sum of:
        0.21124904 = weight(_text_:bibliography in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21124904 = score(doc=450,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.248568 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = queryNorm
            0.8498642 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article studies concentration aspects of bibliographies. More, in particular, we study the impact of incompleteness of such a bibliography on its concentration values (i.e., its degree of inequality of production of its sources). Incompleteness is modeled by sampling in the complete bibliography. The model is general enough to comprise truncation of a bibliography as well as a systematic sample on sources or items. In all cases we prove that the sampled bibliography (or incomplete one) has a higher concentration value than the complete one. These models, hence, shed some light on the measurement of production inequality in incomplete bibliographies.

0.025403023 = product of:
  0.10161209 = sum of:
    0.10161209 = weight(_text_:policy in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10161209 = score(doc=2375,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary collaboration is a major goal in research policy. This study uses citation analysis to examine diverse subjects in the Web of Science and Scopus to ascertain whether, in general, research published in journals classified in more than one subject is more highly cited than research published in journals classified in a single subject. For each subject, the study divides the journals into two disjoint sets called Multi and Mono. Multi consists of all journals in the subject and at least one other subject whereas Mono consists of all journals in the subject and in no other subject. The main findings are: (a) For social science subject categories in both the Web of Science and Scopus, the average citation levels of articles in Mono and Multi are very similar; and (b) for Scopus subject categories within life sciences, health sciences, and physical sciences, the average citation level of Mono articles is roughly twice that of Multi articles. Hence, one cannot assume that in general, multidisciplinary research will be more highly cited, and the converse is probably true for many areas of science. A policy implication is that, at least in the sciences, multidisciplinary researchers should not be evaluated by citations on the same basis as monodisciplinary researchers.

0.025403023 = product of:
  0.10161209 = sum of:
    0.10161209 = weight(_text_:policy in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10161209 = score(doc=4919,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.

0.025403023 = product of:
  0.10161209 = sum of:
    0.10161209 = weight(_text_:policy in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10161209 = score(doc=208,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Problem solving often requires crossing boundaries, such as those between disciplines. When policy-makers call for "interdisciplinarity," however, they often mean "synergy." Synergy is generated when the whole offers more possibilities than the sum of its parts. An increase in the number of options above the sum of the options in subsets can be measured as redundancy; that is, the number of not-yet-realized options. The number of options available to an innovation system for realization can be as decisive for the system's survival as the historically already-realized innovations. Unlike "interdisciplinarity," "synergy" can also be generated in sectorial or geographical collaborations. The measurement of "synergy," however, requires a methodology different from the measurement of "interdisciplinarity." In this study, we discuss recent advances in the operationalization and measurement of "interdisciplinarity," and propose a methodology for measuring "synergy" based on information theory. The sharing of meanings attributed to information from different perspectives can increase redundancy. Increasing redundancy reduces the relative uncertainty, for example, in niches. The operationalization of the two concepts-"interdisciplinarity" and "synergy"-as different and partly overlapping indicators allows for distinguishing between the effects and the effectiveness of science-policy interventions in research priorities.