Quantitative study on Australian academic science

Article

Abstract

As at the end of 2009, 50 million scholarly papers were in existence, and changes in the global higher education sector are seeing this number grow rapidly. With the impact of university ranking schemes, dramatic changes have occurred in the academic publication system; both the number of publications, and the number of scholars, are increasing rapidly. In this research, we conduct a focused study on the quantitative relationships in Australian academic science. Sample data is selected from three institutions, representing three types of universities in Australia: a leading university, a middle-tier university, and a non-comprehensive university. For our analysis, bibliometric data for 32,056 scholars and 353,334 publications are downloaded. The results show that varying growth rates for scholars (5.6, 6.1, and 7.7%) and journal publications (6.7, 7.4, and 9.7%) for the leading university, the middle-tier university, and the non-comprehensive university respectively. We also evaluate how scholarly publications differ across these three Australian universities types from six aspects: average number of publications per scholar, percentage of first-authored publications, collaboration pattern, average SJR score of publishing journals, percentage of Quartile category of publishing journals, and average citation per publication. Lastly, we consider how the scholarship life-cycle varies in Australian universities in terms of publishing age, thus establishing the quantitative relationship between scholarship life-cycle and publishing performance in Australian universities.

Keywords

Scholars Publications Australian universities Scholarship life cycle Collaboration Academic science 

Mathematics Subject Classification

94A99 

JEL Classification

I250 

References

  1. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin, M., & Mabe, M. (2004). Impact factors: Use and abuse. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (IJEST), 1(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Björk, B.-C., Roos, A., & Lauri, M. (2008). Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different open access options. Paper presented at the ELPUB2008.Google Scholar
  4. Blake, G., & Bly, R. W. (1993). The elements of technical writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1996). Publication types, citation rates and evaluation. Scientometrics, 37(3), 473–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, L. (2003a). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, L. (2003b). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colledge, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., López-Illescas, C., El Aisati, M., & Moed, H. F. (2010). SJR and SNIP: Two new journal metrics in Elsevier’s Scopus. Serials, 23(3), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Education Counts. (2014). 2013 age profile of the academic staff in universities, polytechnics and wānanga. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/80898/145849.
  11. Elsevier. (2016). Scopus. from Elsevier http://www.scopus.com/.
  12. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, L. J. (2008). Rank and file: Assessing research quality in Australia. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(7), 811–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gu, X., & Blackmore, K. (2016). Recent trends in academic journal growth. Scientometrics, 108(2), 693–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gu, X., & Blackmore, K. (2017). Characterisation of academic journals in the digital age. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1333–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haslam, N., Stratemeyer, M., & Vargas-Sáenz, A. (2016). Scholarly productivity and citation impact of academic psychologists in group of eight universities. Australian Journal of Psychology, 69, 162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hazelkorn, E. (2009). Impact of global rankings on higher education research and the production of knowledge. Uneso Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge, Occasional Paper No. 18. doi:10.21427/D7BG9J.
  19. Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are reshaping higher education? Paper presented at the IAU 13th general conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hugo, G. (2008). The demographic outlook for Australian universities’ academic staff. Retrieved from https://www.chass.org.au/papers/pdf/PAP20081101GH.pdf.
  22. Jacot, A. P. (1937). Principles of scientific publication. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 45(1), 127–129.Google Scholar
  23. Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search—Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science Bangalore, 89(9), 1537.Google Scholar
  24. Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.Google Scholar
  27. Liu, Z. (2003). Trends in transforming scholarly communication and their implications. Information Processing and Management, 39(6), 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mabe, M., & Amin, M. (2001). Growth dynamics of scholarly and scientific journals. Scientometrics, 51(1), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marginson, S. (1997). Competition and contestability in Australian higher education, 1987/1997. Australian Universities’ Review, 40(1), 5.Google Scholar
  30. Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Where to from here. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  31. Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mishra, V., & Smyth, R. (2013). Are more senior academics really more research productive than junior academics? Evidence from Australian law schools. Scientometrics, 96(2), 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murphy, P. S. (1995). Benchmarking academic research output in Australia. Assessment in Higher Education, 20(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. (2016). QS world university rankings. Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings.
  37. Regional Universities Network. (2016). Funding cuts will hurt Australia’ regional universities and students. Retrieved from http://www.run.edu.au/cb_pages/news/Funding_cuts_response.php.
  38. Scopus. SCImago Journal & Country RankJournal Rankings. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php.
  39. Shanghai JiaoTong University. (2016). Academic ranking of world universities. Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2016.html.
  40. Sullivan, S. (1996). Scholarly publishing: Trash or treasure? Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 27(1), 40–46. doi:10.1080/00048623.1996.10754954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Times Higher Education. (2016). THE world university ranking. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking.
  42. U.S. News and World Report. (2016). USNWR best global universities ranking. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?int=a27a09.
  43. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical Engineering and ComputingThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations