IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v38y2011i6p449-460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does size matter for science? Exploring the effects of research unit size on academics' scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Hugo Horta
  • T Austin Lacy

Abstract

This article analyzes the impact of research unit size on academics' scientific output and communication behavior with peers, controlling for individual and organizational characteristics, including the academics' engagement in teaching. Results show that research unit size does not influence total scientific output, but rather the scientific output profile of individual academics. Upon disaggregating the output we find that academics at larger research units publish more in international than in national peer-reviewed journals. This suggests that research unit size positively affects international visibility, a venue that may proxy for research quality. The analysis also shows that as research unit size increases, it influences academics' overall communication. Most importantly, the academics' information exchange with peers at both national and international levels is highest at larger research units, suggesting that research unit size facilitates contact with academics at both national and international institutions. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugo Horta & T Austin Lacy, 2011. "How does size matter for science? Exploring the effects of research unit size on academics' scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(6), pages 449-460, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:38:y:2011:i:6:p:449-460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234211X12960315267813
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio & Leopold Simar, 2014. "Efficiency and economies of scale and scope in European universities. A directional distance approach," DIAG Technical Reports 2014-08, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    2. Mutz, Rüdiger & Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2017. "Are there any frontiers of research performance? Efficiency measurement of funded research projects with the Bayesian stochastic frontier analysis for count data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 613-628.
    3. Slobodan Perović & Sandro Radovanović & Vlasta Sikimić & Andrea Berber, 2016. "Optimal research team composition: data envelopment analysis of Fermilab experiments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 83-111, July.
    4. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Efficiency and economies of scale and specialization in European universities: A directional distance approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 430-448.
    5. Franc Mali & Toni Pustovrh & Rok Platinovšek & Luka Kronegger & Anuška Ferligoj, 2017. "The effects of funding and co-authorship on research performance in a small scientific community," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 486-496.
    6. Hamid Bouabid & Hind Achachi, 2022. "Size of science team at university and internal co-publications: science policy implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6993-7013, December.
    7. Ryazanova, Olga & Jaskiene, Jolanta, 2022. "Managing individual research productivity in academic organizations: A review of the evidence and a path forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    8. Heitor, Manuel & Horta, Hugo & Mendonça, Joana, 2014. "Developing human capital and research capacity: Science policies promoting brain gain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 6-22.
    9. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na, 2015. "The bureaucratization of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1584-1600.
    10. Hans P. W. Bauer & Gabriel Schui & Alexander Eye & Günter Krampen, 2013. "How does scientific success relate to individual and organizational characteristics? A scientometric study of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 523-539, February.
    11. Mehdi Rhaiem, 2017. "Measurement and determinants of academic research efficiency: a systematic review of the evidence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 581-615, February.
    12. Ribeiro, Filipa M., 2016. "Interdisciplinarity in ferment: The role of knowledge networks and department affiliation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 240-247.
    13. Manganote, Edmilson J.T. & Araujo, Mariana S. & Schulz, Peter A., 2014. "Visualization of ranking data: Geographical signatures in international collaboration, leadership and research impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 642-649.
    14. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi, 2017. "The determinants of research performance in European universities: a large scale multilevel analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1147-1178, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:38:y:2011:i:6:p:449-460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.