IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v109y2016i2d10.1007_s11192-016-2070-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of performance of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grants in the field of Brazilian production engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Tania Picinin

    (Federal University of Technology – Paraná)

  • Luiz Alberto Pilatti

    (Federal University of Technology – Paraná)

  • João Luiz Kovaleski

    (Federal University of Technology – Paraná)

  • Alexandre Reis Graeml

    (Federal University of Technology – Paraná)

  • Bruno Pedroso

    (State University of Ponta Grossa)

Abstract

This paper analyses the academic production of researchers that were called “productivity grants” awarded by CNPq, the Brazilian research funding agency, in the field of production engineering in the period 2007–2009. Was extracted the data resumes of 101 Brazilian researchers in the Lattes Platform. In relation to the scientific production, productivity grant researchers presented superior performance than the other professors working in graduate programs in the production engineering area. There is a tendency towards the increase in the mean of supervisions to master students starting from the highest aggregate level of productivity grants going down to the beginner levels. In comparison with the other permanent professors in graduate programs, who do not hold productivity grants, the tutorial mean for both masters and doctorate students of the grant researchers’ is exactly the same as group 2PQ. PQ researchers usually present high scientific production ad low technical production, while DT researchers present low scientific production and high technical production. There seems to be logical coherence regarding the distribution of grants, at least with respect to the easily measurable progression criteria. However, there is some evidence that for criteria that are harder to assess, there may be some discrepancies.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Tania Picinin & Luiz Alberto Pilatti & João Luiz Kovaleski & Alexandre Reis Graeml & Bruno Pedroso, 2016. "Comparison of performance of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grants in the field of Brazilian production engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 855-870, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2070-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2070-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2070-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-2070-7?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julia Lane, 2010. "Let's make science metrics more scientific," Nature, Nature, vol. 464(7288), pages 488-489, March.
    2. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Deise Deolindo Silva & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Dispersion measures for h-index: a study of the Brazilian researchers in the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 1983-2011, March.
    2. Borenstein, Denis & Perlin, Marcelo S. & Imasato, Takeyoshi, 2022. "The Academic Inbreeding Controversy: Analysis and Evidence from Brazil," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    3. Soleidy Rivero Amador & Maidelyn Díaz Pérez & María José López-Huertas & Reinaldo Javier Rodríguez Font, 2018. "Indicator system for managing science, technology and innovation in universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1575-1587, June.
    4. Carla Mara Hilário & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2017. "Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 929-950, November.
    5. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.

    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. Tuan V. Nguyen & Ly T. Pham, 2011. "Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 107-117, October.
    2. Marie-Violaine Tatry & Dominique Fournier & Benoît Jeannequin & Françoise Dosba, 2014. "EU27 and USA leadership in fruit and vegetable research: a bibliometric study from 2000 to 2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2207-2222, March.
    3. Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    5. Sebastian Vogl & Thomas Scherndl & Anton Kühberger, 2018. "#Psychology: a bibliometric analysis of psychological literature in the online media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1253-1269, June.
    6. Eduardo A. Haddad & Jesus P. Mena-Chalco, Otávio J.G. Sidone, 2016. "Produção Científica e Redes de Colaboração dos Docentes Vinculados aos Programas de Pós-graduação em Economia no Brasil," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2016_10, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    7. Beáta Gavurová & Martina Halásková & Samuel Koróny, 2019. "Research and Development Indicators of EU28 Countries from Viewpoint of Super-efficiency DEA Analysis," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 225-242.
    8. Gil-Clavel, Sofia & Wagenblast, Thorid & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Farmers’ Incremental and Transformational Climate Change Adaptation in Different Regions: A Natural Language Processing Comparative Literature Review," SocArXiv 3dp5e, Center for Open Science.
    9. J Sylvan Katz, 2016. "What Is a Complex Innovation System?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, June.
    10. Stefano Bianchini & Patrick Llerena, 2016. "Science policy as a prerequisite of industrial policy," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(3), pages 273-280, September.
    11. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    12. Nelson, Andrew J., 2012. "Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion at Stanford," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 678-691.
    13. Anna Tietze & Philip Hofmann, 2019. "The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 171-185, April.
    14. Cristina Gomes Souza & Marta Lúcia Azevedo Ferreira, 2013. "Researchers profile, co-authorship pattern and knowledge organization in information science in Brazil," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 673-687, May.
    15. Mauro Vitor Mendlowicz & Evandro Silva Freire Coutinho & Jerson Laks & Leonardo Franklin Fontenelle & Alexandre Martins Valença & William Berger & Ivan Figueira & Gláucia Azambuja Aguiar, 2011. "Is there a ‘gender gap’ in authorship of the main Brazilian psychiatric journals at the beginning of the 21st century?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 27-37, January.
    16. Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean & Sorana D. Bolboacă & Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu & Tudor Cătălin Drugan, 2016. "Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, June.
    17. Andreas Rehs, 2020. "A structural topic model approach to scientific reorientation of economics and chemistry after German reunification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1229-1251, November.
    18. Saad Ahmed Javed & Sifeng Liu, 2018. "Predicting the research output/growth of selected countries: application of Even GM (1, 1) and NDGM models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 395-413, April.
    19. Jianchoun Dou, 2021. "Variety, Fertility, and Long-term Economic Growth," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2021020, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    20. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Open Access as a Crude Solution to a Hold‐Up Problem in the Two‐Sided Market for Academic Journals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 301-349, June.

    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:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2070-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.