Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
542
result(s) for
"Wagner, Caroline S"
Sort by:
نشوء الأكاديمية العالمية الخفية : الشبكة الجديدة بين الباحثين والعلماء
ترسم العالمة الأميركية البارزة في حقل التقانة والفضاء كارولين س. فاغنر في كتابها هذا، طريقا إلى البحث العلمي يشكل تحولا جذريا في عملية تنظيم العلوم في عالمنا الراهن، وذلك، عبر طرحها لنظرية النظم التكيفية وتحليل الشبكات التي تعدها أمرا حاسما لفهم تطور العلوم. ما تريد أن تؤكده فاغنر هو : إن العلوم تحقق درجة أفضل من الازدهار في عالم خال من الحدود الوطنية، حيث لا تكون المعرفة ملكا لأحد بل تتدفق إلى من يستطيع توسيع حدودها إلى أقصى ما يمكن، ولكن، كيف ؟ تقول فاغنر : هذا الكتاب يركز على وصف وتوضيح العوامل الخمسة التي تحدد طبيعة العلم في بداية القرن الحادي والعشرين وشكله. وأنا أعرض، باستخدام النظرية والمثال، حالة من السياسات العلمية التي تعالج العلوم والتكنولوجيا بوصفها نظاما تشبيكيا ناشئا وليس ثروة وطنية. من هذا المنطلق، تأتي أهمية كتاب نشوء الأكاديمية العالمية الخفية فهو يقدم خدمة لا تقدر بثمن، ليس بالمساعدة على تطوير هذا الفهم فحسب، بل أيضا عبر تطوير النقاش في السياسات العلمية نحو النموذج الجديد الذي تقتضيه طبيعة العالم في القرن الحادي والعشرين.
BOOK
Consolidation in a crisis: Patterns of international collaboration in early COVID-19 research
This paper seeks to understand whether a catastrophic and urgent event, such as the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerates or reverses trends in international collaboration, especially in and between China and the United States. A review of research articles produced in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that COVID-19 research had smaller teams and involved fewer nations than pre-COVID-19 coronavirus research. The United States and China were, and continue to be in the pandemic era, at the center of the global network in coronavirus related research, while developing countries are relatively absent from early research activities in the COVID-19 period. Not only are China and the United States at the center of the global network of coronavirus research, but they strengthen their bilateral research relationship during COVID-19, producing more than 4.9% of all global articles together, in contrast to 3.6% before the pandemic. In addition, in the COVID-19 period, joined by the United Kingdom, China and the United States continued their roles as the largest contributors to, and home to the main funders of, coronavirus related research. These findings suggest that the global COVID-19 pandemic shifted the geographic loci of coronavirus research, as well as the structure of scientific teams, narrowing team membership and favoring elite structures. These findings raise further questions over the decisions that scientists face in the formation of teams to maximize a speed, skill trade-off. Policy implications are discussed.
Journal Article
The Continuing Growth of Global Cooperation Networks in Research: A Conundrum for National Governments
Global collaboration continues to grow as a share of all scientific cooperation, measured as coauthorships of peer-reviewed, published papers. The percent of all scientific papers that are internationally coauthored has more than doubled in 20 years, and they account for all the growth in output among the scientifically advanced countries. Emerging countries, particularly China, have increased their participation in global science, in part by doubling their spending on R they are increasingly likely to appear as partners on internationally coauthored scientific papers. Given the growth of connections at the international level, it is helpful to examine the phenomenon as a communications network and to consider the network as a new organization on the world stage that adds to and complements national systems. When examined as interconnections across the globe over two decades, a global network has grown denser but not more clustered, meaning there are many more connections but they are not grouping into exclusive 'cliques'. This suggests that power relationships are not reproducing those of the political system. The network has features an open system, attracting productive scientists to participate in international projects. National governments could gain efficiencies and influence by developing policies and strategies designed to maximize network benefits-a model different from those designed for national systems.
Journal Article
The New Invisible College: Science for Development
Today the organization of science is undergoing a fundamental transformation. In The New Invisible College, Caroline Wagner combines quantitative data and extensive interviews to map the emergence of global science networks and trace the dynamics driving their growth. She argues that the shift from big science to global networks creates unprecedented opportunities for developing countries to tap science's potential. Rather than squander resources in vain efforts to mimic the scientific establishments of the twentieth century, developing country governments can leverage networks by creating incentives for top-notch scientists to focus on research that addresses their concerns and by finding ways to tie knowledge to local problem solving. The New Invisible College offers both a guidebook and a playbook for policymakers confronting these tasks.
eBook
One-year in: COVID-19 research at the international level in CORD-19 data
The appearance of a novel coronavirus in late 2019 radically changed the community of researchers working on coronaviruses since the 2002 SARS epidemic. In 2020, coronavirus-related publications grew by 20 times over the previous two years, with 130,000 more researchers publishing on related topics. The United States, the United Kingdom and China led dozens of nations working on coronavirus prior to the pandemic, but leadership consolidated among these three nations in 2020, which collectively accounted for 50% of all papers, garnering well more than 60% of citations. China took an early lead on COVID-19 research, but dropped rapidly in production and international participation through the year. Europe showed an opposite pattern, beginning slowly in publications but growing in contributions during the year. The share of internationally collaborative publications dropped from pre-pandemic rates; single-authored publications grew. For all nations, including China, the number of publications about COVID track closely with the outbreak of COVID-19 cases. Lower-income nations participate very little in COVID-19 research in 2020. Topic maps of internationally collaborative work show the rise of patient care and public health clusters—two topics that were largely absent from coronavirus research in the two years prior to 2020. Findings are consistent with global science as a self-organizing system operating on a reputation-based dynamic.
Journal Article
Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine
Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine who received the Prize between 1969 and 2011 are compared to a matched group of scientists to examine productivity, impact, coauthorship and international collaboration patterns embedded within research networks. After matching for research domain, h-index, and year of first of publication, we compare bibliometric statistics and network measures. We find that the Laureates produce fewer papers but with higher average citations. The Laureates also produce more sole-authored papers both before and after winning the Prize. The Laureates have a lower number of coauthors across their entire careers than the matched group, but are equally collaborative on average. Further, we find no differences in international collaboration patterns. The Laureates coauthor network reveals significant differences from the non-Laureate network. Laureates are more likely to build bridges across a network when measuring by average degree, density, modularity, and communities. Both the Laureate and non-Laureate networks have \"small world\" properties, but the Laureates appear to exploit \"structural holes\" by reaching across the network in a brokerage style that may add social capital to the network. The dynamic may be making the network itself highly attractive and selective. These findings suggest new insights into the role \"star scientists\" in social networks and the production of scientific discoveries.
Journal Article
Developing an index of national research capacity
We test the feasibility of incorporating broad social, political, and governance indicators with standard metrics as a way to enrich assessment of national research capacity. We factor analyze two sets of variables for 174 countries from 2012 to 2021, one being tradtional measures associated with national science and technology capacity, such as spending, and a second being broader social, political, and governance measures, such as academic freedom. As expected, two factors emerge, one for raw or “core” research capacity and the other indicating the wider governance context. Further analysis shows convergent validity within the two factors and divergent validity between them. The analysis also quantifies the contribution of each indicator to each factor. Nations rank differently for each factor and also when combined. Ranks vary as a function of the chosen aggregation method. As a test of the predictive validity of the capacity index, we find both factors to be associated with country-level field-weighted citation indices. Policymakers and analysts may find useful feedback from this approach to quantifying national research strength.
Journal Article
Open countries have strong science
We analysed publication and citation data for 36 nations, along with government expenditures on science. We found that although government spending on research and development (R&D) does correlate with the number of publications produced, it does not correlate with scientific impact - at least as assessed by citations, one of the few practical metrics available. What does correlate with impact is a country's openness, which we approximated by combining metrics of international co-authorship and the mobility of each nation's research workforce.
Journal Article
Are University Rankings Statistically Significant? A Comparison among Chinese Universities and with the USA
Building on Leydesdorff, Bornmann, and Mingers (2019), we elaborate the differences between Tsinghua and Zhejiang University as an empirical example. We address the question of whether differences are statistically significant in the rankings of Chinese universities. We propose methods for measuring statistical significance among different universities within or among countries. Based on z-testing and overlapping confidence intervals, and using data about 205 Chinese universities included in the Leiden Rankings 2020, we argue that three main groups of Chinese research universities can be distinguished (low, middle, and high). When the sample of 205 Chinese universities is merged with the 197 US universities included in Leiden Rankings 2020, the results similarly indicate three main groups: low, middle, and high. Using this data (Leiden Rankings and Web of Science), the z-scores of the Chinese universities are significantly below those of the US universities albeit with some overlap. We show empirically that differences in ranking may be due to changes in the data, the models, or the modeling effects on the data. The scientometric groupings are not always stable when we use different methods. Differences among universities can be tested for their statistical significance. The statistics relativize the values of decimals in the rankings. One can operate with a scheme of low/middle/high in policy debates and leave the more fine-grained rankings of individual universities to operational management and local settings. In the discussion about the rankings of universities, the question of whether differences are statistically significant, has, in our opinion, insufficiently been addressed in research evaluations.
Journal Article
The Trap of Securitizing Science
In response to China’s rise, Western governments are acting to limit scientific collaboration—but these measures will not increase economic competitiveness and could inhibit the practice of science itself.
Journal Article