Institutional sectors in the international scientific production from Spain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.1.1260Keywords:
Institutional sectors, Spain, bibliometric indicators, Web of ScienceAbstract
Institutional sectors —groups of centers with similar characteristics and types of R&D— constitute an interesting unit of analysis that can also serve as a useful framework for benchmarking purposes in R&D studies. The analysis of Spanish scientific output included in the Web of Science database (2000–2011) shows the predominance of Universities (66%), followed by the Public Research Organisations (OPI) (23%) and the Health Sector (18%). Non–profit organizations (ESAL) (10%), which include both Traditional Entities with non-Profit Aims (ETSAL) and new Research Structures with non-Profit Aims (EISAL), show the highest impact values, regardless of whether indicators based on impact factors (normalised position, percentage of articles in the first quartile) or on citations are used. Universities present a more evenly distributed thematic profile and it is the only sector specialized in fields such as Social Sciences, Humanities or Mathematics, while the Health Sector is highly specialized in Clinical Medicine. During the period studied, the different sectors tended to increase their scientific production, to publish in higher impact factor journals and to intensify the level of collaboration and internationalization of their publications. Especially noteworthy is the strong rise of non–profit organizations, in particular the case of EISAL, which conduct high impact research mainly in Biomedicine. No relationship has been found between the areas in which the sectors are specialized and those in which they obtain the highest impact.
Downloads
References
Abramo, G.; D'Ángelo, C.A.; Di Costa, F.; Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29 (6– 7), 498–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.11.003
Adams, J. (2012). Collaborations: The rise of research networks. Nature, 490 (7420), 335–336.
Barlan, J.R. (2010). Measuring economic inequalities: Lorenz curve, coefficient of variation and Gini coefficient. Available at: https://docs.google. com/document/d/1yBD5K5k3AesA_uf9uPn3- FHU8O1qi8eVnDbsWsdkUeQ/edit
Batagelj, V.; Mrvar, A. (2014) Pajek: Program for Analysis and Visualization of Large Networks, Reference Manual, V 3.15.
Bordons, M. (2004). Hacia el reconocimiento internacional de las publicaciones científicas espa-olas. Revista Espa-ola de Cardiología, 57 (9), 799–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-8932(04)77198-5
Bordons, M.; Barrigón, S. (1992). Bibliometric Analysis of publications of Spanish pharmacologists in the SCI (1984-1989). Part II. Contribution to subfields other than Pharmacology and Pharmacy. Scientometrics, 25 (3), 425– 446.
Bordons, M; Morillo, F.; Gómez, I; Moreno, L.; Aparicio, J.; González–Albo, B. (2014). La actividad científica del CSIC a través de indicadores bibliométricos: (Web of Science, 2009–2013). Madrid: IFS–UTAI–CCHS–CSIC.
Bordons, M.; Sancho, R.; Morillo, F.; Gómez, I. (2010). Perfil de actividad científica de las universidades espa-olas en cuatro áreas temáticas: un enfoque multifactorial. Revista Espa-ola de Documentación Científica, 33 (1), 9–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2010.1.718
Chang, Y.W. (2014) Exploring scientific articles contributed by industries in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 99 (2), 599–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1222-2
Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología (2007). Plan Nacional de Investigación Científica, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica 2008–2011. Madrid: Fundación Espa-ola para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT).
Cruz–Castro, L.; Sanz–Menéndez, L.; Martínez, C. (2012). Research centers in transition: patterns of convergence and diversity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37 (1), 18–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9168-5
De Filippo, D.; Lascurain, M.L.; Casado, E. (2013). Patrones de actividad científica de los diversos sectores institucionales en el Sistema Espa-ol de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Madrid: Actas del XI Congreso de Sociología, Vol. II, 1002–1013.
Díaz–Faes, A.A.; González–Albo, B.; Galindo, M.P.; Bordons, M. (2013). HJ–Biplot como herramienta de inspección de matrices de datos bibliométricos. Revista Espa-ola de Documentación Científica, 36 (1), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2013.1.988
Glänzel, W.; Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co– authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50 (2), 199– 214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010561321723
Godin, B.; Dore, C.; Lariviere, V. (2002). The production of knowledge in Canada: Consolidation and diversification. Journal of Canadian Studies– Revue D'Etudes Canadiennes, 37 (3), 56–70.
Godin, B.; Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research Policy, 29 (2), 273–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00065-7
Gómez, I.; Bordons, M.; Morillo, F.; Moreno, L.; Aparicio, J.; Candelario, A.; González–Albo, B.; Herrero, M. (2009). Indicadores de Producción Científica y Tecnológica de la Comunidad de Madrid (2004– 2008). Madrid: IEDCYT.
Grupo Bibliometría (2006). La investigación del CSIC a través de sus publicaciones científicas de difusión internacional (1981–2003). Madrid: CINDOC, CSIC.
Grupo Scimago (2007). La productividad ISI de las Universidades espa-olas. El Profesional de la Información, 16(4), 354–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2007.jul.11
Hackett, E. (2005). Introduction: special guest– edited issue on scientific collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 35 (5), 667–671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312705057569
Huang, M.H.; Chang, H.W.; Chen, D.Z. (2006). Research evaluation of research–oriented universities in Taiwan from 1993 to 2003. Scientometrics, 67 (3), 419– 435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.6
Kamada, T.; Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31 (1), 7–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(89)90102-6
Katz, J. S.; Hicks, D. M. (1996). A systemic view of British science. Scientometrics, 35 (1), 133–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02018237
Lander, B. (2013). Sectoral collaboration in biomedical research and development. Scientometrics, 94 (1), 343–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0776-8
Lehvo, A.; Nuutinen, A. (2006). Finnish science in international comparison. Helsinki: Academy of Finland (Publications of the Academy of Finland; 15/2006).
Leta, J.; Chaimovich, H. (2002). Recognition and international collaboration: the Brazilian case. Scientometrics, 53 (3), 325–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014868928349
Maltrás, B.; Quintanilla, M.A. (1992). La producción científica espa-ola: 1981–89. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (2010). Programa Ingenio 2010: Balance de actuaciones. http:// www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Prensa/FICHEROS/2010/Versi%C3%B3n_Informe_Ingenio%202010_para_prensa.pdf.
Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Amsterdam: Springer.
Morillo, F.; Aparicio, J.; González–Albo, B.; Moreno, L. (2013). Towards the automation of address identification. Scientometrics, 94 (1), 207–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0733-6
Moya–Anegón, F. de; Solis Cabrera, F.M.; Corera–Álvarez, E.; Chinchilla–Rodríguez, Z.; Gómez–Crisóstomo, R.; González–Molina, A.; Vargas–Quesada, B. (2008). Indicadores bibliométricos de la producción científica de Andalucía 2003–2005. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa.
Moya–Anegón, F. de; Chinchilla–Rodríguez, Z.; Corera–Álvarez, E.; González–Molina, A.; López–Illescas, C.; Vargas–Quesada, B. (2013). Indicadores bibliométricos de la actividad científica espa-ola 2010. Madrid: FECYT.
Moya–Anegón, F. de; López–Illescas, C.; Moed, H.F. (2014). How to interpret the position of private sector institutions in bibliometric rankings of research institutions. Scientometrics, 98 (1), 283– 298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1087-4
National Science Board (2014). Science & Engineering Indicators. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14–01).
OCDE (2003). Manual de Frascati, 2002: Medición de las actividades científicas y tecnológicas: Propuesta de Norma Práctica para Encuestas de Investigación y Desarrollo Experimental. Madrid: FECYT.
Ortega, J. L.; Aguillo, I. F. (2010). Shaping the European research collaboration in the 6th Framework Programme health thematic area through network analysis. Scientometrics, 85 (1), 377–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0218-4
Rovira, L.; Méndez–Vásquez, R.I.; Su-én–Pinyol, E; Camí, J. (2007). Caracterització bibliomètrica de la producció científica a Catalunya, 1996–2006. Informe. Barcelona: AGAUR–PRBB.
Science and Technology Indicator Project Team, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2004). Science and technology indicators: 2004. A systematic analysis of Science and Technology Activities in Japan. Japón: MEXT.
Sort García, M.L.; Rodríguez Méndez, C. (2012) Análisis ICONO: SCImago Institutions Ranking (SIR) 2012: Documento de Trabajo 3/2012. Madrid: FECYT.
Tijssen, R.; Hollanders, H.; Kanerva, M. (2010). Science and Technology Indicators 2010: summary report on the Netherlands. Leiden: Netherlands Observatory of Science and Technology (NOWT).
Van Leeuwen, T.N.; Moed, H.F.; Tijssen,R.J.W.; Visser, M.S.; van Raan, A.F.J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 335–346. http://dx.doi. org/10.1023/A:1010549719484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010549719484
Wuchty, S.; Jones, B.F.; Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036-1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099 PMid:17431139
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
