, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 497–513 | Cite as

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

  • Olof Hallonsten


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.


Big Science Synchrotron radiation facilities Quality assessment Performance assessment Productivity 



The author is grateful to Rick Fenner and Susan Strasser at the Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, for their assistance in retrieving some data unavailable in Annual Reports. The author also would like to thank Gustav Holmberg for the recurring fruitful discussions that eventually led to this article.


  1. Birgeneau, B., & Shen, Z.X. (1997). Report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Panel on D.O.E. synchrotron radiation sources and science. Washington, DC, US Department of Energy’s Office of Science’s Office of Basic Energy Science.Google Scholar
  2. Doing, P. (2009). Velvet revolution at the synchrotron: biology, physics, and change in science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Elzinga, A. (2012). Features of the current science policy regime: viewed in historical perspective. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frahm, R., & Williams, G. (2007). Twenty years of synchrotron radiation. Synchrotron Radiation News, 20(1), 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hallonsten, O. (2009). Small science on big machines: politics and practices of synchrotron radiation laboratories. Dissertation, Lund University, Lund.Google Scholar
  6. Hallonsten, O. (2012). Continuity and change in the politics of European scientific collaboration. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8(3), 300–319.Google Scholar
  7. Hallonsten, O., & Heinze, T. (2012). Institutional persistence through gradual adaptation: analysis of national laboratories in the USA and Germany. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 450–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holl, J. M. (1997). Argonne National Laboratory 1946–96. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jacob, M., & Hallonsten, O. (2012). The persistence of big science and megascience in research and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 411–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krige, J. (2003). The Politics of European Scientific Collaboration. In J. Krige & D. Pestre (Eds.), Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century (pp. 897–918). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3180), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NUFO. (2009). Participation by industrial users in research at national user facilities: status, issues, and recommendations. Preliminary report prepared as a summary of a 11 June 2009, industrial usage workshop conducted under the auspices of the National User Facility Organization (NUFO) at Argonne National Laboratory, 3 Aug 2009.Google Scholar
  13. Papon, P. (2004). European scientific cooperation and research infrastructures: past tendencies and future prospects. Minerva, 42(1), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sasaki, T. (1997). A prospect and retrospect—the Japanese case. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, 4, 359–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spring-8. (2012). History. SPring-8. Accessed 24 Sept 2012.
  16. Westfall, C. (2008). Retooling for the future: launching the advanced light source at Lawrence’s Laboratory, 1980–1986. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 38(4), 569–609.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Westfall, C. (2010). Surviving to tell the tale: Argonne’s intense pulsed neutron source from an ecosystem perspective. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 40(3), 350–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Westfall, C. (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, 39(4), 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations