Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 117, Issue 2, pp 1157–1182 | Cite as

Is science driven by principal investigators?

  • Andrej KastrinEmail author
  • Jelena Klisara
  • Borut Lužar
  • Janez Povh
Article

Abstract

In this paper we consider the question what is the scientific and career performance of principal investigators (PI’s) of publicly funded research projects compared to scientific performance of all researchers. Our study is based on high quality data about (1) research projects awarded in Slovenia in the period 1994–2016 (7508 projects with 2725 PI’s in total) and (2) about scientific productivity of all researchers in Slovenia that were active in the period 1970–2016—there are 19,598 such researchers in total, including the PI’s. We compare average productivity, collaboration, internationality and interdisciplinarity of PI’s and of all active researchers. Our analysis shows that for all four indicators the average performance of PI’s is much higher compared to average performance of all active researchers. Additionally, we analyze careers of both groups of researchers. The results show that the PI’s have on average longer and more fruitful career compared to all active researchers, with regards to all career indicators. The PI’s that have received a postdoc grant have at the beginning outstanding scientific performance, but later deviate towards average. On long run, the PI’s leading the research programs (the most prestigious grants) on average demonstrate the best scientific performance. In the last part of the paper we study 23 co-authorship networks, spanned by all active researchers in the periods 1970–1994, ..., 1970–2016. We find out that they are well connected and that PI’s are well distributed across these networks forming their backbones. Even more, PI’s generate new PI’s, since more than 90% of new PI’s are connected (have at least one joint scientific publication) with existing PI’s. We believe that our study sheds new light to the relations between the public funding of the science and the scientific output and can be considered as an affirmative answer to the question posed in the title.

Keywords

Research performance Career performance Principal investigator Bibliographic network Research evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by Slovenian Research Agency Program P1-0383 and Projects J1-8155, N1-0057.

References

  1. Baglieri, D., & Lorenzoni, G. (2014). Closing the distance between academia and market: Experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. (2007). Leadership of academics in research. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(4), 449–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bland, C. J., & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review. Academic Medicine, 67(6), 385–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boardman, C., & Ponomariov, B. (2014). Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37(5), 900–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bushaway, R. (2003). Managing research. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Casati, A., & Genet, C. (2014). Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Çavuşoğlu, A., & Türker, I. (2013). Scientific collaboration network of turkey. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 57, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunningham, J. A., Mangematin, V., O’Kane, C., & O’Reilly, P. (2016a). At the frontiers of scientific advancement: The factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 778–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & O’Kane, C. (2018). Value creation in the quadruple helix: A micro level conceptual model of principal investigators as value creators. R&D Management, 48(1), 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, J. A., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2015). Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(3–4), 176–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham, J. A., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2016b). Publicly funded principal investigators as transformative agents of public sector entrepreneurship. In D. B. Audretsch & A. N. Link (Eds.), Essays in public sector entrepreneurship (pp. 67–94). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26677-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Del Giudice, M., Nicotra, M., Romano, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2017). Entrepreneurial performance of principal investigators and country culture: Relations and influences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feeney, M. K., & Welch, E. W. (2014). Academic outcomes among principal investigators, co-principal investigators, and non-pi researchers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferligoj, A., & Kronegger, L. (2009). Clustering of attribute and/or relational data. Metodoloski zvezki, 6(2), 135–153.Google Scholar
  17. Ferligoj, A., Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Snijders, T. A., & Doreian, P. (2015). Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics, 104(3), 985–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Domesticity and internationality in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 65(3), 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Han, P., Shi, J., Li, X., Wang, D., Shen, S., & Su, X. (2014). International collaboration in lis: Global trends and networks at the country and institution level. Scientometrics, 98(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hâncean, M. G., & Perc, M. (2016). Homophily in coauthorship networks of east european sociologists. Scientific Reports, 6, 36152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hemlin, S. (2006). Creative knowledge environments for research groups in biotechnology. The influence of leadership and organizational support in universities and business companies. Scientometrics, 67(1), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karlovčec, M., & Mladenić, D. (2015). Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring. Scientometrics, 102(1), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karlovčec, M., Lužar, B., & Mladenić, D. (2016). Core-periphery dynamics in collaboration networks: The case study of Slovenia. Scientometrics, 109, 1561–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kastrin, A., Klisara, J., Lužar, B., & Povh, J. (2017). Analysis of Slovenian research community through bibliographic networks. Scientometrics, 110, 791–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kidwell, D. K. (2014). Navigating the role of the principal investigator: A comparison of four cases. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, J., Tao, L., Lee, S. H., & Diesner, J. (2016). Evolution and structure of scientific co-publishing network in Korea between 1948–2011. Scientometrics, 107(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2012). Collaboration structures in slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, 90(2), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2015). Classifying scientific disciplines in slovenia: A study of the evolution of collaboration structures. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kwiek, M. (2015). Academic generations and academic work: Patterns of attitudes, behaviors, and research productivity of polish academics after 1989. Studies in Higher Education, 40(8), 1354–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lane, J. (2010). Let’s make science metrics more scientific. Nature, 464(7288), 488–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix of universityindustrygovernment relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279–286.Google Scholar
  36. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.Google Scholar
  37. Lužar, B., Levnajić, Z., Povh, J., & Perc, M. (2014). Community structure and the evolution of interdisciplinarity in Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mangematin, V., O’Reilly, P., & Cunningham, J. (2014). PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Melkers, J., & Xiao, F. (2012). Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: Determinants of funding success for academic scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mena-Chalco, J. P., Digiampietri, L. A., Lopes, F. M., & Cesar, R. M. (2014). Brazilian bibliometric coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1424–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Menter, M. (2016). Principal investigators and the commercialization of knowledge. In D. Audretsch, E. Lehmann, M. Meoli, & S. Vismara (Eds.), University evolution, entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness (pp. 193–203). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17713-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, K., Alexander, A., Cunningham, J. A., & Albats, E. (2018). Entrepreneurial academics and academic entrepreneurs: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Management, 77(1–3), 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moses, I. (1985). The role of head of department in the pursuit of excellence. Higher Education, 14(4), 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Kane, C., Cunningham, J., Mangematin, V., & O’Reilly, P. (2015). Underpinning strategic behaviours and posture of principal investigators in transition/uncertain environments. Long Range Planning, 48(3), 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Kane, C., Zhang, J. A., Cunningham, J. A., & OReilly, P. (2017). What factors inhibit publicly funded principal investigators commercialization activities? Small Enterprise Research, 24(3), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Reilly, P., & Cunningham, J. A. (2017). Enablers and barriers to university technology transfer engagements with small-and medium-sized enterprises: Perspectives of principal investigators. Small Enterprise Research, 24(3), 274–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perc, M. (2010a). Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perc, M. (2010b). Zipf’s law and log-normal distributions in measures of scientific output across fields and institutions: 40 years of Slovenia’s research as an example. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 358–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pravdić, N., & Oluić-Vuković, V. (1986). Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics, 10(5–6), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang, L., & Webber, K. L. (2015). A decade beyond the doctorate: The influence of a us postdoctoral appointment on faculty career, productivity, and salary. Higher Education, 70(4), 667–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Faculty of Information Studies in Novo mestoNovo mestoSlovenia
  4. 4.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  5. 5.Faculty of SciencePavol J. Šafárik UniversityKosiceSlovakia

Personalised recommendations