arXiv subjects

Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo

Publications and source records attributed to Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2021

The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior

We investigate the changes in the self-citation behavior of Italian professors following the introduction of a citation-based incentive scheme, for national accreditation to academic appointments. Previous contributions on self-citation behavior have either focused on small samples or relied on simple models, not controlling for all confounding factors. The present work adopts a complex statistics model implemented on bibliometric individual data for over 15,000 Italian professors. Controlling for a number of covariates (number of citable papers published by the author; presence of international authors; number of co-authors; degree of the professor's specialization), the average increase in self-citation rates following introduction of the ASN is of 9.5%. The increase is common to all disciplines and academic ranks, albeit with diverse magnitude. Moreover, the increase is sensitive to the relative incentive, depending on the status of the scholar with respect to the scientific accreditation. A further analysis shows that there is much heterogeneity in the individual patterns of self-citing behavior, albeit with very few outliers.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Gendered impact of COVID-19 pandemic on research production: a cross-country analysis

The massive shock of the COVID-19 pandemic is already showing its negative effects on economies around the world, unprecedented in recent history. COVID-19 infections and containment measures have caused a general slowdown in research and new knowledge production. Because of the link between R&D spending and economic growth, it is to be expected then that a slowdown in research activities will slow in turn the global recovery from the pandemic. Many recent studies also claim an uneven impact on scientific production across gender. In this paper, we investigate the phenomenon across countries, analysing preprint depositions. Differently from other works, that compare the number of preprint depositions before and after the pandemic outbreak, we analyse the depositions trends across geographical areas, and contrast after-pandemic depositions with expected ones. Differently from common belief and initial evidence, in few countries female scientists increased their scientific output while males plunged.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Do the propensity and drivers of academics' engagement in research collaboration with industry vary over time?

This study is about public-private research collaboration. In particular, we want to measure how the propensity of academics to collaborate with their colleagues from private firms varies over time and whether the typical profile of such academics change. Furthermore, we investigate the change of the weights of main drivers underlying the academics' propensity to collaborate with industry. In order to achieve such goals, we apply an inferential model on a dataset of professors working in Italian universities in two subsequent periods, 2010-2013 and 2014-2017. Results can be useful for supporting the definition of policies aimed at fostering public-private research collaborations, and should be taken into account when assessing their effectiveness afterwards.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2020

The relative impact of private research on scientific advancement

Literature about the scholarly impact of scientific research offers very few contributions on private sector research, and the comparison with public sector. In this work, we try to fill this gap examining the citation-based impact of Italian 2010-2017 publications distinguishing authorship by the private sector from the public sector. In particular, we investigate the relation between different forms of collaboration and impact: how intra-sector private publications compare to public, and how private-public joint publications compare to intra-sector extramural collaborations. Finally, we assess the different effect of international collaboration on private and public research impact, and whether there occur differences across research fields.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2020

A bibliometric methodology to unveil territorial inequities in the scientific wealth to combat COVID-19

In this paper we develop a methodology to assess the scientific wealth of territories at field level. Our methodology uses a bibliometric approach based on the observation of academic research performance and overall scientific production in each territory. We apply it to assess disparities in the Italian territories in the medical specialties at the front line of the COVID-19 emergency. Italy has been the first among western countries to be severely affected by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study reveals remarkable inequities across territories, with scientific weaknesses concentrated in the south. Policies for rebalancing the north-south divide should also consider, in addition to tangible assets, the gap in production and availability of quality medical knowledge.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2020

Unveiling the distinctive traits of a nation's research performance: the case of Italy and Norway

In this study we are analysing the research performance of Italian and Norwegian professors using constituent components of the Fractional Scientific Strength (FSS) indicator. The main focus is on differences across fields in publication output and citation impact. The overall performance (FSS) of the two countries, which differ considerably in research size and profile, is remarkedly similar. However, an in-depth analysis shows that there are large underlying performance differences. An average Italian professor publishes more papers than a Norwegian, while the citation impact of the research output is higher for the Norwegians. In addition, at field level the pattern varies along both dimensions, and we analyse in which fields each country have their relative strengths. Overall, this study contributes to further insights on how the research performance of different countries may be analysed and compared, to inform research policy.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2020

The role of geographic proximity in knowledge diffusion, measured by citations to scientific literature

This paper analyses the influence of geographic distance on knowledge flows, measured through citations to scientific publications. Previous works using the same approach are limited to single disciplines. In this study, we analyse the Italian scientific production in all disciplines matured in the period 2010-2012. To calculate the geographic distances between citing and cited publications, each one is associated with a "prevalent" territory on the basis of the authors' affiliations. The results of the application of a gravity model, estimated using ordinary least squares regression, show that despite the spread of IT, geographic distance continues to be an influential factor in the process of knowledge flows between territories. In particular, the analysis reveals that the effect of geographic distance on knowledge flows is significant at the national level, not negligible at the continental level, but completely irrelevant at the intercontinental level.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

The balance of knowledge flows

In analogy to the technology balance of payments, in this paper we propose a possible way to set up a "balance of knowledge flows" (BKF), recording world flows of knowledge within the scientific community. Adopting a pure bibliometric approach, the "knowledge" traced in the BKF is that produced and exchanged by the scientific community by means of publications and relevant citations. A description of the theoretical foundation of such a tool is presented together with its empirical testing over the scientific production of four different countries. The BKF can be part of yearly reports of science and technology indicators, aimed at informing research policy.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Predicting long-term publication impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor

The ability to predict the long-term impact of a scientific article soon after its publication is of great value towards accurate assessment of research performance. In this work we test the hypothesis that good predictions of long-term citation counts can be obtained through a combination of a publication's early citations and the impact factor of the hosting journal. The test is performed on a corpus of 123,128 WoS publications authored by Italian scientists, using linear regression models. The average accuracy of the prediction is good for citation time windows above two years, decreases for lowly-cited publications, and varies across disciplines. As expected, the role of the impact factor in the combination becomes negligible after only two years from publication.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

The collaboration behavior of top scientists

The intention of this work is to analyze top scientists' collaboration behavior at the "international", "domestic extramural" and "intramural" levels, and compare it to that of their lesser performing colleagues. The field of observation consists of the entire faculty of the Italian academic system, and so the coauthorship of scientific publications by over 12,000 professors. The broader aim is to improve understanding of the causal nexus between research collaboration and performance. The analysis is thus longitudinal, over two successive five-year periods. Results show a strong increase in the propensity to collaborate at domestic level (both extramural and intramural), however this is less for scientists who remain or become top, than it is for their lower-performing colleagues. In contrast, the increase in international collaboration behavior is greater for scientists who become or remain top than it is for their peers. The increase in productivity by those who acquire top scientist status is due precisely to the greater average impact of the publications achieved in collaboration with foreign colleagues.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Testing for universality of Mendeley readership distributions

Altmetrics promise useful support for assessing the impact of scientific works, including beyond the scholarly community and with very limited citation windows. Unfortunately, altmetrics scores are currently available only for recent articles and cannot be used as covariates in predicting long term impact of publications. However, the study of their statistical properties is a subject of evident interest to scientometricians. Applying the same approaches used in the literature to assess the universality of citation distributions, the intention here is to test whether the universal distribution also holds for Mendeley readerships. Results of the analysis carried out on a sample of publications randomly extracted from the Web of Science confirm that readerships seem to share similar shapes across fields and can be rescaled to a common and universal form. Such rescaling results as not particularly effective on the right tails. In other regions, rescaling causes a good collapse of field specific distributions, even for very recent publications.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

A nation's foreign and domestic professors: which have better research performance? (The Italian case)

This work investigates the research performance of foreign faculty in the Italian academic system. Incoming professors compose l'1% of total faculty across the sciences, although with variations by discipline. Their scientific performance measured over 2010-2014 is on average better than that of their Italian colleagues: the greatest difference is for associate professors. Psychology is the discipline with the greatest concentration of top foreign scientists. However there are notable shares of unproductive foreign professors or of those with mediocre performance. The findings stimulate reflection on issues of national policy concerning attractiveness of the higher education system to skilled people from abroad, given the ongoing heavy Italian brain drain.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Peer review vs bibliometrics: which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?

In this work, we try to answer the question of which method, peer review vs bibliometrics, better predicts the future overall scholarly impact of scientific publications. We measure the agreement between peer review evaluations of Web of Science indexed publications submitted to the first Italian research assessment exercise and long-term citations of the same publications. We do the same for an early citation-based indicator. We find that the latter shows stronger predictive power, i.e., it more reliably predicts late citations in all the disciplinary areas examined, and for any citation time window starting one year after publication.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Are all citations worth the same? Valuing citations by the value of the citing items

Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004-2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater "sensitivity" when used to identify the highly-cited papers.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: which strategy pays off?

The current work addresses a theme previously unexplored in the literature: that of whether the results arising from research activity in fields other than the scientist's pri-mary field have greater value than the others. Operationally, the authors proceed by identifying: the scientific production of each researcher under observation; field classifi-cation of the publications; the field containing the greatest number of the researcher's publications; attribution of value of each publication. The results show that diversifica-tion at the aggregate level does not pay off, although there are some exceptions at the level of individual disciplines. The implications at policy level are notable. Since the in-centive systems of research organizations are based on the impact of scientific output, the scientists concerned could resist engaging in multidisciplinary projects.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Comparison of research productivity of Italian and Norwegian professors and universities

This is the first ever attempt of application in a country other than Italy of a research efficiency indicator (FSS), to assess and compare the performance of professors and universities, within and between countries. A special attention has been devoted to the presentation of the methodology developed to set up a common field classification scheme of professors, and to overcome the limited availability of comparable input data. Results of the comparison between countries, carried out in the 2011-2015 period, show similar average performances of professors, but noticeable differences in the distributions, whereby Norwegian professors are more concentrated in the tails. Norway shows notable higher performance in Mathematics and Earth and Space Sciences, while Italy in Biomedical Research and Engineering.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

A gender analysis of top scientists' collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy

This work analyzes the differences in collaboration behavior between males and females among a particular type of scholars: top scientists, and as compared to non top scientists. The field of observation consists of the Italian academic system and the co-authorships of scientific publications by 11,145 professors. The results obtained from a cross-sectional analysis covering the five-year period 2006-2010 show that there are no significant differences in the overall propensity to collaborate in the top scientists of the two genders. At the level of single disciplines there are no differences in collaboration behavior, except in the case of: i) international collaborations, for Mathematics and Chemistry - where the propensity for collaboration is greater for males; and ii) extramural domestic collaborations in Physics, in which it is the females that show greater propensity for collaboration. Because international collaboration is positively correlated to research performance, findings can inform science policy aimed at increasing the representation of female top performers.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Authorship analysis of specialized vs diversified research output

The present work investigates the relations between amplitude and type of collaboration (intramural, extramural domestic or international) and output of specialized versus diversified research. By specialized or diversified research, we mean within or beyond the author's dominant research topic. The field of observation is the scientific production over five years from about 23,500 academics. The analyses are conducted at the aggregate and disciplinary level. The results lead to the conclusion that in general, the output of diversified research is no more frequently the fruit of collaboration than is specialized research. At the level of the particular collaboration types, international collaborations weakly underlie the specialized kind of research output; on the contrary, extramural domestic and intramural collaborations are weakly associated with diversified research. While the weakness of association remains, exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines.

cs.DL↗