The Brazilian scientific output published in journals: A study based on a large CV database

Perlin, Marcelo and Santos, André and Imasato, Takeyoshi and Borenstein, Denis and Da Silva, Sergio (2017): The Brazilian scientific output published in journals: A study based on a large CV database. Published in: Journal of Informetrics , Vol. 11, No. 1 : pp. 18-31.

Abstract

We assemble a massive sample of 180,000 CVs of Brazilian academic researchers of all disciplines from the Lattes platform. From the CVs we gather information on key variables related to the researchers and their publications. We find males are more productive in terms of quantity of publications, but the effect of gender in terms of research impact is mixed for individual groups of subject areas. Holding a PhD from abroad increases the chance for a researcher to publish in journals of higher impact, whereas domestic PhDs publish more articles, but in journals of less impact. Thus, there is a trade-off between quantity and research impact. We also find that the more years a researcher takes to finish his or her doctorate, the more likely he or she will publish less thereafter, although in outlets of higher impact. The data also support the existence of an inverted U-shaped function relating research age and productivity.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Lattes platform, scholarly publishing, scientific productivity, Brazilian researchers
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights

References

Abramo G., Cicero T, Dangelo CA (2015) Should the research performance of scientists be distinguished by gender? Journal of Informetrics 9(1), 25-38.

Almeida EC, Guimarães JA (2013) Brazil’s growing production of scientific articles: How are we doing with review articles and other qualitative indicators? Scientometrics 97(2), 287-315.

Analytics R, Weston S (2014) doParallel: For each parallel adaptor for the parallel package. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=doParallel, r package version 1.0.8.

Barrios M, Villarroya A, Borrego A (2013) Scientific production in psychology: A gender analysis. Scientometrics 95(1), 15-23.

Beets SD, Lewis BR, Browe HH (2016) The quality of business ethics journals: An assessment based on application. Business & Society 55(2), 188-213.

Bin A, Salles-Filho S, Capanema LM, Colugnati FAB (2015) What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production. Scientometrics 102(2), 1167-1188.

Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R (2009) A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One 4(6), e6022.

Bonaccorsi A, Daraio C (2003) Age effects in scientific productivity. Scientometrics 58(1), 49-90.

Bordons M, Fernández MT, Gómez I (2002) Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics 53(2), 195-206.

Bourke P, Butler L (1996) Publication types, citation rates and evaluation. Scientometrics 37(3), 437-494.

Charyton C, Elliott JO, Rahman MA, Woodard JL, DeDios S (2011) Gender and science: Women Nobel laureates. The Journal of Creative Behavior 45(3), 203-214.

Chung HK, Cox RAK (1990) Patterns of productivity in the finance literature: A study of the bibliometric distributions. Journal of Finance 45(1), 301-309.

Coile RC (1977) Lotka’s frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 28(6), 366-370.

Da Silva S (2009) Going parochial in the assessment of the Brazilian economics research output. Economics Bulletin 29(4), 2826-2846.

Dahl DB (2014) xtable: Export tables to LaTeX or HTML. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xtable, r package version 1.7-4.

Diniz-Filho JA, Fioravanti MCS, Bini LM, Rangel TF (2016) Drivers of academic performance in a Brazilian university under a government-restructuring program. Journal of Informetrics 10 (1), 151-161.

Dowle M, Srinivasan A, Short T, with contributions from R Saporta SL, Antonyan E (2015) data.table: Extension of Data.frame. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=data.table, r package version 1.9.6.

Dundar H, Lewis, DR (1998) Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education 39(6), 607-631.

Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB Journal 22(8), 2623-2628.

Frey BS., Rost K (2010) Do rankings reflect research quality? Journal of Applied Economics 13(1), 1-38.

Genova G, Astudillo H, Fraga A (2016) The scientometric bubble considered harmful. Science and Engineering Ethics 22(1), 227-235.

Guimarães B (2012) Qualis as a measuring stick for research output in economics. Brazilian Review of Econometrics 31(1), 3-18.

Gonzalez-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote V, Moya-Anegon F (2010) A new approach to the metric of journals scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4(3), 379-391.

Hall CM (2011) Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management 32(1), 16-27.

Huang DW (2016) Positive correlation between quality and quantity in academic journals. Journal of Informetrics 10(2), 329-335.

Isfandyari-Moghaddam A, Hasanzadeh M, Ghayoori Z (2012) A study of factors affecting research productivity of Iranian women in ISI. Scientometrics 91(1), 159-172.

Kyvik S (2003) Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. Scientometrics 58(1), 35-48.

Lane J (2010) Let’s make science metrics more scientific. Nature 464(7288), 488-489.

Larivire V, Vignola-Gagn E, Villeneuve C, Glinas P, Gingras Y (2011) Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: An analysis of Quebec university professors. Scientometrics 87(3), 483-498.

Laurance WF, Useche DC, Laurance SG, Bradshaw CJ (2013) Predicting publication success for biologists. BioScience 63(10), 817-823.

Leifeld P (2013) texreg: Conversion of statistical model output in R to LATEX and HTML tables. Journal of Statistical Software 55(8), 1-24.

Leite P, Mugnaini R, Leta J (2011) A new indicator for international visibility: Exploring Brazilian scientific community. Scientometrics 88(1), 311-319.

Leta J, Lewison G (2003) The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography. Scientometrics 57(3), 339-353.

Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16(12), 317-324.

Moed HF (2005) Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht.

Morganson VJ, Jones MP, Major DA (2010) Understanding women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: The role of social coping. The Career Development Quarterly 59(2), 169-179.

Nelder JA, Baker RJ (1972) Generalized linear models. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences.

Piro F, Aksnes DW, Rørstad K (2013) A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(2), 307-320.

Prpi K (2002) Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics 55(1), 27-58.

Puuska HM (2009) Effects of scholars gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types: Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics 82(2), 419-437.

R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, URL https://www.R-project.org/.

Roos DH, Calabró L, De Jesus SL, Souza DO, Barbosa NV, Da Rocha JBT (2014) Brazilian scientific production in areas of biological sciences: A comparative study on the modalities of full doctorate in Brazil or abroad. Scientometrics 98(1), 415-427.

Rorstad K, Aksnes DW (2015) Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position: A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Informetrics 9(2), 317-333.

Ruiz-Castillo J, Costas R (2014) The skewness of scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics 8(4), 917-934.

Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314(7079), 498-502.

Seglen PO, Aksnes DW (2000) Scientific productivity and group size: A bibliometric analysis of Norwegian microbiological research. Scientometrics 49(1), 125-143.

Shin JC, Cummings WK (2010) Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics 85(2), 581-594.

Tuesta EF, Delgado KV, Mugnaini R, Digiampietri LA, Mena-Chalco JP, Pérez-Alcázar JJ (2015) Analysis of an advisor–advisee relationship: An exploratory study of the area of exact and earth sciences in Brazil. PloS One 10(5), e0129065.

van Arensbergen P, van der Weijden I, van den Besselaar P (2012) Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics 93(3), 857-868.

Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York, URL http://had.co.nz/ggplot2/book.

Wickham H, Francois R (2015) dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr, r package version 0.4.3.

Wickham H, James DA, Falcon S (2014) RSQLite: SQLite interface for R. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RSQLite, r package version 1.0.0.