VIVO: A Semantic Approach to Scholarly Networking and Discovery

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

The world of scholarship is changing rapidly. Increasing demands on scholars, the growing size and complexity of questions and problems to be addressed, and advances in sophistication of data collection, analysis, and presentation require new approaches to scholarship. A ubiquitous, open information infrastructure for scholarship, consisting of linked open data, open-source software tools, and a community committed to sustainability are emerging to meet the needs of scholars today.

 

This book provides an introduction to VIVO, http://vivoweb.org/, a tool for representing information about research and researchers — their scholarly works, research interests, and organizational relationships. VIVO provides an expressive ontology, tools for managing the ontology, and a platform for using the ontology to create and manage linked open data for scholarship and discovery. Begun as a project at Cornell and further developed by an NIH funded consortium, VIVO is now being established as an open-source project with community participation from around the world. By the end of 2012, over 20 countries and 50 organizations will provide information in VIVO format on more than one million researchers and research staff, including publications, research resources, events, funding, courses taught, and other scholarly activity. The rapid growth of VIVO and of VIVO-compatible data sources speaks to the fundamental need to transform scholarship for the 21st century.

 

Table of Contents: Scholarly Networking Needs and Desires / The VIVO Ontology / Implementing VIVO and Filling It with Life / Case Study: University of Colorado at Boulder / Case Study: Weill Cornell Medical College / Extending VIVO / Analyzing and Visualizing VIVO Data / The Future of VIVO: Growing the Community

 

Source:

VIVO: A Semantic Approach to Scholarly Networking and Discovery

Synthesis Lectures on the Semantic Web: Theory and Technology

October 2012, 178 pages, (doi:10.2200/S00428ED1V01Y201207WBE002)

KatyBörner Indiana University

MichaelConlon University of Florida

JonCorson-Rikert Cornell University

YingDing Indiana University

 

Fulltext:

http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/pdfplus/10.2200/S00428ED1V01Y201207WBE002

 

See on www.morganclaypool.com

Advertisements

Enhancing Impact; the value of public sector R&D

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

key conclusions.

 

• A wide range of qualitative and quantitative evidence shows that in the UK public sector research investment yields substantial benefits to society in economic and wider social terms

 

• Where rates of return on public sector research funding can be sensibly estimated they are high (e.g. for health care in the range

10-25% over a 10-25 year time horizon).

 

• The pathways to impact of public sector research investment are however long, varied and complex, and final impacts on social and economic welfare depend critically on complementary investments being made by the private sector.

 

• The long time-scales and multiple inputs required to establish impact make quantification in general exceptionally difficult and this is exacerbated by the typically skewed distribution of positive impacts.

As with all innovation-related investments, uncertainty produces outcomes in which a small number of successes account for the bulk of the impact.

 

• Where quantification is possible, it involves detailed analysis of multiple types of output and input. Attempts to reduce these to a single rate of return at the level of a project or the economy as a whole often requires heroic and questionable assumptions

• It may thus be a serious policy mistake to rely on rate of return calculations as evidence of the health or otherwise of the innovation system. Moreover they give little policy guidance as to which pathways or processes and supporting investments actually led to the impacts.

 

• More sophisticated systems-based methods of impact measurement emphasising intermediate and trajectory-based measures must be adopted across the research and innovation landscape in order to guide policy development.

 

Source:

Alan Hughes
a.hughes@cbr.cam.ac.uk
Centre for Business Research and UK~IRC
Judge Business School
University of Cambridge
Trumpington Street, CB2 1AG, UK
Ben R. Martin
b.martin@sussex.ac.uk
SPRU, University of Sussex
CSaP and CBR
Judge Business School
University of Cambridge

 

Summary report:

http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/Impact%20Report%20-%20Exec%20Sum%20webversion1.pdf

 

Full report:

http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/Impact%20Report%20-%20webversion.pdf

 

See on www.cbr.cam.ac.uk

Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Abstract

There has been an increasing focus on the strategic role of universities in stimulating innovation and economic growth, primarily though the transfer of technology. This paper interrogates some

of the key aspects of much of the conventional wisdom concerning the transfer of technology and the knowledge exchange process in general. It analyses the results from two unique surveys: a survey of the UK academic community which generated more than 22,000

responses; and stratified survey of businesses which generated more than 2500 responses. The paper shows that there are many knowledge exchange mechanisms used by academics – these include commercialisation processes but also many other ‘hidden’ connections. It also shows that knowledge exchange involves

academics from all disciplines – not just those from science and engineering – and involves partners from the public and third (not for profit) sectors as well as private sector businesses. Furthermore, it shows that the main constraints that hinder or limit the knowledge exchange process include a lack of time, in sufficient internal capability to manage relationships; and insufficient information to identify partners. Problems concerning cultural differences between academics and business and disputes concerning intellectual

property are not prominent. Overall, the paper suggests that the notion of an academic ‘ivory tower’ seems to be a myth as far as the UK is concerned. It al so suggests that a strategic focus on

strengthening connections between academia and the rest of society may generate long-term benefits but it will also face challenges and should not distort or divert from the foundations of scholarship on which the success of universities are built.

 

Key Words:

Universities, Impact, Knowledge Exchange, Technology Transfer

 

source:

PATHWAYS TO IMPACT AND THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF

UNIVERSITIES

Centre for Business Research, Univers

ity of Cambridge Working Paper No. 435

By

Alan Hughes

Centre for Business Research

Judge Business School

University of Cambridge

Cambridge CB2 1AG

a.hughes@cbr.cam.ac.uk

 

and

 

Michael Kitson

Centre for Business Research

Judge Business School

University of Cambridge

Cambridge CB2 1AG

m.kitson@jbs.cam.ac.uk

September 2012

 

Fulltext: http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/WP435.pdf

See on www.cbr.cam.ac.uk

Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy encourages scientists to think differently about the use of scientific evidence in policy making

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy encourages scientists to think differently about the use of scientific evidence in policy making.

 

Contents:

2 Why This Report Now
3 The Use of Research Knowledge: Current Scholarship
4 Research on the Use of Science in Policy: A Framework
5 The Next Generation of Researchers and Practitioners
Appendix A Selected Major Social Science Research Methods
Appendix B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff

 

“The research framework argues for more careful study of policy argumentation, as well as for increased roles for the psychology of decision making and for systems perspectives. The social sciences offer important knowledge about how mental models, belief systems, organizational rules, societal norms, and other factors influence the behavior of decision makers. They also offer important knowledge about how people learn, when they optimize and when they satisfice; why they organize themselves, form institutions, communicate, establish norms, and develop routines; how they assess risks; and how they make decisions, individually and collectively. This array of scientific specialties has never fully addressed a key issue: when,
why, how, even whether science is used in public policy making. Research can explain the cognitive operations and biases that policy makers and scientists bring to their work and the context-specific situations, practices, logics (ways of reasoning and understanding), and cultural assumptions of the settings in which they operate. Relevant research fields include social psychology, behavioral economics, decision theory, and organizational sociology. We urge scholars in these and related specialties to investigate the use of scientific knowledge in policy making.”

 

Source:

 

Kenneth Prewitt, Thomas A. Schwandt, and Miron L. Straf, Editors;
Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy;
Center for Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education; National Research Council, 2012

ISBN 978-0-309-26161-6, 122 pages

 

See on www.nap.edu

ESI: Only 16 authors have published at least 70 papers in the field of Economics and Business over the last 10 years; Franses (EUR/ESE) included.

Essential Science Indicators has been updated as of September 1, 2012 to cover a 10-year plus 6-month period, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2012.

The field of economics & Business covers 289 journals in the essential science Indicators of Web of Science.

Erasmus University Rotterdam is included in this list with Professor Philip Hans Franses (Erasmus School of Economics) who produced 70 papers in the period 2002-2012 (according to ESI).

Personal page here: http://www.erim.eur.nl/people/philip-hans-franses/

 

Scientist Papers Citations Citations Per Paper
1 LEE, J 149 1.113 7,47
2 KIM, J 133 643 4,83
3 WRIGHT, M 127 1.762 13,87
4 KIM, S 116 391 3,37
5 ZHANG, J 115 497 4,32
6 LIST, JA 95 2.070 21,79
7 LI, Y 92 430 4,67
8 NARAYAN, PK 86 658 7,65
9 KIM, Y 85 294 3,46
10 SHOGREN, JF 84 813 9,68
11 ZHANG, Y 79 441 5,58
12 PHILLIPS, PCB 78 572 7,33
13 ROZELLE, S 77 765 9,94
14 KUMAR, V 71 1.162 16,37
15 LEE, K 71 551 7,76
16 FRANSES, PH 70 524 7,49

ESI: only 15 universities produced at least 1400 papers in the field of Economics and Business over the last 10 years; Erasmus University Rotterdam included

Essential Science Indicators has been updated as of September 1, 2012 to cover a 10-year plus 6-month period, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2012.

The field of economics & Business covers 289 journals in the essential science Indicators of Web of Science.

Only 15 universities produced at least 1400 papers in the field of Economics and Business over the last 10 years; Erasmus University Rotterdam included.

Erasmus University Rotterdam ranks 2nd outside the US next to LSE. This is a major performance for Erasmus University Rotterdam. The citations per paper of the two non-US schools still clearly lacks behind the US schools.

This is why citation impact is the next big excellence frontier for Erasmus University Rotterdam. Far the most research in economics and business is done in the Erasmus School of Economics (ese) and the Rotterdam School of Management (rsm) and their research institutes ERIM and TI.

Institution Papers Citations Citations Per Paper
1 NATL BUR ECON RES 3.672 66.785 18,19
2 HARVARD UNIV 2.882 52.511 18,22
3 UNIV PENN 1.957 34.958 17,86
4 NEW YORK UNIV 1.772 25.964 14,65
5 STANFORD UNIV 1.742 25.381 14,57
6 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY 1.706 24.367 14,28
7 COLUMBIA UNIV 1.672 22.342 13,36
8 UNIV MICHIGAN 1.595 20.741 13,00
9 MIT 1.583 32.251 20,37
10 UNIV CHICAGO 1.552 28.600 18,43
11 LONDON SCH ECON & POLIT SCI 1.542 13.808 8,95
12 CORNELL UNIV 1.530 17.388 11,36
13 UNIV ILLINOIS 1.492 16.353 10,96
14 UNIV WISCONSIN 1.486 16.459 11,08
15 ERASMUS UNIV ROTTERDAM 1.430 12.179 8,52

ESI: only 4 countries received at least 50.000 citations in the period 2002-2012 in the field of Economics & Business, Netherlands included.

Essential Science Indicators has been updated as of September 1, 2012 to cover a 10-year plus 6-month period, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2012.

The field of economics & Business covers 289 journals in the essential science Indicators of Web of Science.

Only 4 countries received on avarage at least 50.000 citations  in the period covered by the ESI. But the size of the production difefers very much. USA still by far the largets producers of papers in economics and business.

Country Papers Citations Citations Per Paper
1 USA 76.363 735.703 9,63
2 UK 21.348 158.187 7,41
3 CANADA 10.231 72.803 7,12
4 NETHERLANDS 7.338 53.213 7,25
5 GERMANY 11.140 52.663 4,73

RSS Business School News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Locations of Site Visitors

Altmetric Related stuf

if(typeof(AltmetricWidget) !== 'undefined'){ window.AltmetricWidget489 = new AltmetricWidget("AltmetricWidget489"); }}

%d bloggers like this: