IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v96y2013i2d10.1007_s11192-012-0945-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing ‘facilitymetrics’: a first review and analysis of commonly used measures of scientific leadership among synchrotron radiation facilities worldwide

Author

Listed:
  • Olof Hallonsten

    (University of Gothenburg)

Abstract

Big Science accelerator complexes are no longer mere tools for nuclear and particle physics, but modern-day experimental resources for a wide range of natural sciences and often named instrumental to scientific and technological development for innovation and economic growth. Facilities compete on a global market to attract the best users and facilitate the best science, and advertise the achievement of their users as markers of quality and productivity. Thus a need has risen for (quantitative) quality assessment of science on the level of facilities. In this article, we examine some quantitative performance measurements frequently used by facilities to display quality: technical reliability, competition for access, and publication records. We report data from the world’s three largest synchrotron radiation facilities from the years 2004–2010, and discuss their meaning and significance by placing them in proper context. While we argue that quality is not possible to completely capture in these quantitative metrics, we acknowledge their apparent importance and, hence, we introduce and propose facilitymetrics as a new feature of the study of modern big science, and as a new empirical focus for scientometrical study, in the hope that future studies can contribute to a deeper, much-needed analysis of the topic.

Suggested Citation

  • Olof Hallonsten, 2013. "Introducing ‘facilitymetrics’: a first review and analysis of commonly used measures of scientific leadership among synchrotron radiation facilities worldwide," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 497-513, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:96:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0945-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0945-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0945-9
    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/s11192-012-0945-9?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. Olof Hallonsten & Thomas Heinze, 2012. "Institutional persistence through gradual organizational adaptation: Analysis of national laboratories in the USA and Germany," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 450-463, July.
    2. Merle Jacob & Olof Hallonsten, 2012. "The persistence of big science and megascience in research and innovation policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 411-415, July.
    3. Catherine Westfall, 2012. "Institutional persistence and the material transformation of the US national labs: The curious story of the advent of the Advanced Photon Source," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 439-449, July.
    4. Aant Elzinga, 2012. "Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in historical perspective," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 416-428, August.
    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. Del Bo, Chiara F., 2016. "The rate of return to investment in R&D: The case of research infrastructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 26-37.
    2. Laurent Bach & Sandrine Wolff, 2022. "The BETA-EvaRIO impact evaluation method: towards a bridging approach?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 651-672, June.
    3. Kamilla Kohn Rådberg & Hans Löfsten, 2024. "The entrepreneurial university and development of large-scale research infrastructure: exploring the emerging university function of collaboration and leadership," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 334-366, February.
    4. Laurent Bach & Sandrine Wolff, 2017. "The BETA-EvaRIO impact evaluation method: towards a bridging approach?," Post-Print hal-02167827, HAL.
    5. Richard Heidler & Olof Hallonsten, 2015. "Qualifying the performance evaluation of Big Science beyond productivity, impact and costs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 295-312, July.
    6. Fabio S. V. Silva & Peter A. Schulz & Everard C. M. Noyons, 2019. "Co-authorship networks and research impact in large research facilities: benchmarking internal reports and bibliometric databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 93-108, January.
    7. Wenchao Xu & Yanmei Xu & Junfeng Li, 2017. "A Study of RI Clusters Based on Symbiosis Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    8. Chiara F. DEL BO, 2014. "The rate of return to investment in R&D infrastructure: an overview," Departmental Working Papers 2014-11, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    9. Olof Hallonsten, 2014. "How expensive is Big Science? Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 483-496, August.
    10. D’Ippolito, Beatrice & Rüling, Charles-Clemens, 2019. "Research collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures: Collaboration types and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1282-1296.

    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. Olof Hallonsten, 2014. "How expensive is Big Science? Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 483-496, August.
    2. Richard Heidler & Olof Hallonsten, 2015. "Qualifying the performance evaluation of Big Science beyond productivity, impact and costs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 295-312, July.
    3. Young-Sun Jang & Young Joo Ko, 2019. "How latecomers catch up to leaders in high-energy physics as Big Science: transition from national system to international collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 437-480, April.
    4. Christoph March & Ina Schieferdecker, 2021. "Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky," CESifo Working Paper Series 9139, CESifo.
    5. D’Ippolito, Beatrice & Rüling, Charles-Clemens, 2019. "Research collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures: Collaboration types and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1282-1296.
    6. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Morretta, Valentina & Vurchio, Davide & Carrazza, Stefano, 2022. "The socio-economic value of scientific publications: The case of Earth Observation satellites," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    8. Kamilla Kohn Rådberg & Hans Löfsten, 2024. "The entrepreneurial university and development of large-scale research infrastructure: exploring the emerging university function of collaboration and leadership," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 334-366, February.
    9. Morretta, Valentina & Florio, Massimo & Landoni, Matteo, 2023. "The social value of Earth observation: A new evaluation framework for public high-tech infrastructures," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 407-419.
    10. Erik Aarden & Luca Marelli & Alessandro Blasimme, 2021. "The translational lag narrative in policy discourse in the United States and the European Union: a comparative study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Torregrosa-Hetland, Sara & Pelkonen, Antti & Oksanen, Juha & Kander, Astrid, 2019. "The prevalence of publicly stimulated innovations –A comparison of Finland and Sweden, 1970–2013," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1373-1384.
    12. Patrick S. Roberts & Jon Schmid, 2022. "Government‐led innovation acceleration: Case studies of US federal government innovation and technology acceleration organizations," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(3), pages 353-378, May.
    13. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    14. Anna-Lena Rüland & Nicolas Rüffin & Katharina Cramer & Prosper Ngabonziza & Manoj Saxena & Stefan Skupien, 2023. "Science diplomacy from the Global South: the case of intergovernmental science organizations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 782-793.
    15. Stanislav Zaichenko, 2018. "The human resource dimension of science-based technology transfer: lessons from Russian RTOs and innovative enterprises," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 368-388, April.
    16. Ben R. Martin, 2015. "R&D Policy Instruments: A Critical Review of What We Do & Don't Know," Working Papers wp476, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    17. Wenchao Xu & Yanmei Xu & Junfeng Li, 2017. "A Study of RI Clusters Based on Symbiosis Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.

    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:96:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0945-9. 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.