IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v54y2025i5s004873332500068x.html

Allocating time on scientific platforms in outer space: Evidence from James Webb Space Telescope Cycle 1-3 general observer programs

Author

Listed:
  • Williams, Christopher

Abstract

This study explores the determinants of allocated time on large, complex scientific platforms, with a focus on astronomy and the competition for scientific use of space telescopes. Time allocation has become part of an intense competitive landscape for researchers vying for use of these assets once they are launched and calibrated. Extant research on determinants of time allocation in this context is mixed and scholars have portrayed astronomy as a moral economy, with issues of fairness – including gender equality - and openness at stake. Analysis of data from the first three Cycles of accepted programs on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) using multivariable modelling shows allocated time to be consistently linked to size of the investigator team and whether the investigators waived exclusivity. The relationship between principal investigator (PI) gender and allocated time is found to vary over the three Cycles, as well as by program size and distance categories. PI affiliation and team geographic diversity have no consistent relationship with allocated time in regression tests although geographic diversity is correlated with team size. Findings are discussed against the backdrop of a moral economy in astronomy and the salience of issues relating to equality, diversity, and openness in scientific competition for large-scale research assets.

Suggested Citation

  • Williams, Christopher, 2025. "Allocating time on scientific platforms in outer space: Evidence from James Webb Space Telescope Cycle 1-3 general observer programs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(5).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:5:s004873332500068x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2025.105239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332500068X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105239?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laia Pujol Priego & Jonathan Wareham & Angelo Kenneth S. Romasanta, 2022. "The puzzle of sharing scientific data," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 219-250, February.
    2. Zuiderwijk, Anneke & Spiers, Helen, 2019. "Sharing and re-using open data: A case study of motivations in astrophysics," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 228-241.
    3. Arsev U. Aydinoglu & Suzie Allard & Chad Mitchell, 2016. "Measuring diversity in disciplinary collaboration in research teams: An ecological perspective," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 18-36.
    4. Julia Heuritsch, 2021. "Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, November.
    5. Giffoni, Francesco & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "Public support of science: A contingent valuation study of citizens' attitudes about CERN with and without information about implicit taxes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    6. Seeber, Marco & Cattaneo, Mattia & Meoli, Michele & Malighetti, Paolo, 2019. "Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 478-491.
    7. Irvine, John & Martin, Ben R. & Abraham, John & Peacock, Tim, 1987. "Assessing basic research: Reappraisal and update of an evaluation of four radio astronomy observatories," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 213-227, August.
    8. Jinya Liu & Kunhua Zhao & Liping Gu & Huichuan Xia, 2024. "To share or not to share, that is the question: a qualitative study of Chinese astronomers’ perceptions, practices, and hesitations about open data sharing," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Han-Wen Chang & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2014. "Cohesive subgroups in the international collaboration network in astronomy and astrophysics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1587-1607, December.
    10. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    11. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    12. Langford, Cooper H. & Langford, Martha Whitney, 2000. "The evolution of rules for access to megascience research environments viewed from Canadian experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-179, February.
    13. Marta Kowal & Piotr Sorokowski & Emanuel Kulczycki & Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, 2022. "The impact of geographical bias when judging scientific studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 265-273, January.
    14. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    15. Barry, Andrew, 1991. "Technical and political change in basic research: The case of the European X-ray Observatory Satellite," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 261-273, June.
    16. Peter Weingart & Marina Joubert & Karien Connoway, 2021. "Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, July.
    17. Giancarlo Lauto & Finn Valentin, 2013. "How Large-Scale Research Facilities Connect to Global Research," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(4), pages 381-408, July.
    18. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
    19. Bercovitz, Janet & Feldman, Maryann, 2011. "The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 81-93, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    2. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2020. "How the Publish-or-Perish Principle Divides a Science : The Case of Academic Economists," Other publications TiSEM 6fbb6b92-0e06-4271-b6e7-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Zaggl, Michael A. & Pottbäcker, Judith, 2021. "Facilitators and inhibitors for integrating expertise diversity in innovation teams: The case of plasmid exchange in molecular biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Li, Yingbo & Wei, Yigang & Li, Yan & Lei, Zhen & Ceriani, Alessandra, 2022. "Connecting emerging industry and regional innovation system: Linkages, effect and paradigm in China," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Martin, Ben R., 2012. "The evolution of science policy and innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1219-1239.
    8. Christian Matt & Christian Hoerndlein & Thomas Hess, 2017. "Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 111-124, May.
    9. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    10. A. Baccini & L. Barabesi & M. Cioni & C. Pisani, 2014. "Crossing the hurdle: the determinants of individual scientific performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 2035-2062, December.
    11. O'Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Zhang, Jing A. & Haar, Jarrod, 2024. "How research agendas are framed: Insights for leadership, learning and spillover in science teams," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(7).
    12. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    13. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    14. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2024. "Rank analysis of most cited publications, a new approach for research assessments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    15. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    16. Frenken, Koen & Hardeman, Sjoerd & Hoekman, Jarno, 2009. "Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 222-232.
    17. Huegel, Matthias, 2024. "University scientists’ multiple goals achievement: Social capital and its impact on research performance and research commercialization," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    18. Mirja Meyborg & Axel Schaffer, 2014. "Regional and global collaborations for knowledge in German academia," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 34(2), pages 157-176, October.
    19. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    20. Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Francis Narin, 2018. "European Paradox or Delusion—Are European Science and Economy Outdated?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 14-23.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:5:s004873332500068x. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.