Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:40:33.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bibliometrics and the Modern Commercial Regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2010

Philip Mirowski
Philip Mirowski*
Affiliation:
History & Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame, Indiana.
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines the role of bibliometrics in exploring the question of the effect of commercialization upon the health of American science. It approaches the problem through the question: What would constitute relevant evidence documenting decline in the number of scientific articles published by American authors in the last two decades? Because even the data have been privatized recently, it begins by criticizing article counts used in other venues. It concludes by demonstrating that the problem of decline is not merely in relative shares between countries, but also an absolute decline in American-authored articles across the board. We close with some proposed causes of the decline.

Résumé

À partir d’une étude diachronique sur la production scientifique américaine dans différents domaines et en tenant compte de la diminution de la part des Etats-Unis résultant de la montée en puissance d’autres lieux de production scientifique dans le monde, notamment en Chine, la question est posée de savoir si l’on peut imputer à la place prise par les intérêts privés, à commencer par le lobby bibliométrique, un impact plus ou moins négatif sur la production scientifique aux États-Unis. Un exercice de comparaison internationale est esquissé.

Zusammenfassung

Der Niedergang der amerikanischen Wissenschaft ist Thema einer langanhaltenden Debatte. Zweifelsohne gehen die amerikanischen Veröffentlichung zahlenmäßig zurück, bedingt unter anderem durch die zunehmende wissenschaftliche Tätigkeit in anderen Teilen der Welt, besonders Chinas. Es stellt sich die Frage, welchen Einfluß Privatinteressen, und hier vor allen Dingen solche bibliometrischer Lobbies, auf wissenschaftliche Arbeiten haben. Ein internationaler Vergleich wird angestrebt.

Keywords

ScienceBibliometric organizationsPrivatisationScienceOrganisations bibliométriquesPrivatisationWissenschaftBibliometrische VerbändePrivatisierung
Type
Research Articles
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , August 2010 , pp. 243 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, James, 2007. “Recent Trends in US Science and Engineering” in Galama, Titus and Hosek, James, eds., Perspectives on US Competitiveness is Science and Technology, (Santa Monica, Rand Corporation).Google Scholar
Adams, James and Griliches, Zvi, 1996. “Mapping science: an exploration”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93, pp. 12664-12670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altbach, Philip and Levy, Daniel, 2005. Private Higher Education: a global revolution (Rotterdam, Sense Publishers).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltimore, David, 2003. “On Over-Weighting the Bottom Line”, Science, 301, pp. 1050-1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Robert, Hill, Derek and Lehming, Rolf, 2007. “The Changing Research and Publication Environment in American Research universities”, NSF working paper SRS 07-204.Google Scholar
Biagioli, Mario and Galison, Peter, eds., 2002. Scientific Authorship: credit and intellectual property in science (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Birnholtz, Jeremy, 2006. “What Does it Mean to be an Author? The intersection of credit, contribution and collaboration in science”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (13), pp. 1758-1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bok, Derek, 2003. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Broad, William, 2004. “US is Losing its dominance in the sciences”, New York Times, May 3.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, Geoff, 2008. “Bell Labs Bottoms Out” Nature, 454, p. 927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charbonneau, Louis, 2006. “Google Scholar Matches Thomson ISI Citation Index”, University Affairs, March.Google Scholar
Crespi, Gustavo and Guena, Aldo, 2008. “An Empirical Study of Scientific Production: a cross-country analysis, 1981-2002”, Research Policy, 37, pp. 565-579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, John, 1998. “Problems in Using the Social Sciences Citation Index to Rank Economics Journals”, American Economist, 42, pp. 59-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dosi, Giovanni and Grazzi, Marco, 2006. “Technologies as Problem-solving Procedures and Technologies as Input-Output Relations”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, pp. 173-202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endlich, Lisa, 2004. Optical Illusions: Lucent and the Crash of Telecom (New York, Simon & Schuster).Google Scholar
European Commission, 2006. Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets in Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Richard, 2007. “Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce and National Security” in Galama, Titus and Hosek, James, eds., Perspectives on US Competitiveness is Science and Technology (Santa Monica, Rand Corporation).Google Scholar
Godin, Benoît, 2006b. “The Birth of Bibliometrics”, Scientometrics, 68, pp. 109-133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godin, Benoît, 2008. “In the Shadow of Schumpeter”, Minerva, 46, pp. 343-360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravois, John, 2006. “Tracking the Invisible Faculty”, Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 December.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Daniel, 2007. Science for Sale (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guess, Andy, 2007. “American Science Plateau”, Inside Higher Ed, 20 July, www.insidehighered.comGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Diana, 2005. “America’s Innovative Edge at Risk?”, Research Technology and Management, 48, pp. 8-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Diana, 2007. “Global Research Competition Affects Measured US Academic Output” in Stephan, Paula E. and Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Science and the University (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Hill, Dereck, Rapoport, Alan, Lehming, Rolf and Bell, Robert, 2007. Changing US Output of Scientific Articles 1988-2003 (Arlington, NSF Division of Science Resource Statistics).Google Scholar
Hodgson, Geoffrey and Rothman, Harry, 2001. “The Editors and Authors of Economics Journals: a Case of Institutional Oligopoly?”, Economic Journal, 109, pp. 165-186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaschik, Scott, 2008. “The Shrinking Professoriate,” Inside Higher Ed.com, March 12.Google Scholar
King, David, 2004. “The Scientific Impact of Nations: what different countries get for their research spending” Nature, 15 July, 430, pp. 311-316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lederman, Doug, 2007. “Inexorable March to a Part-Time Faculty” Inside Higher Ed, March 28 .Google Scholar
Lederman, Doug, 2008b. “Unprecedented 2-Year Decline for US Science Funds” Inside Higher Ed, August 25.Google Scholar
Lemonick, Michael, 2006. “Are We Losing our Edge?” Time Magazine, February 5; http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156575,00.htmlGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, Sharon, 2005. “The Health of the Scientific Enterprise in the US,” paper presented to Trilateral Seminar on Science Policy, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Lewin, Tamar, 2008. “US Universities Rush to Set Up Campuses Abroad” New York Times, February 10.Google Scholar
Lewin, Tamar, 2009. “State Colleges also Face Cuts in ambitions” New York Times, March 17.Google Scholar
Liu, Zimang, 2003. “Trends in Transforming Scholarly Communication and their Implications,” Information Processing and Management, 39 (6), pp. 889-898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McSherry, Corynne, 2001. Who Owns Academic Work? (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Mervis, Jeffrey, 2007. “US Output Flattens, NSF Wonders Why” Science, 317, p. 582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mirowski, Philip, forthcoming. Science Marttm (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip and Esther-Mirjam, Sent, 2007. “The Commercialization of Science and the Response of STS”, in Hackett, Edward J., Amsterdamska, Olga, Lynch, Michael and Wajcman, Judy, eds., The New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Cambridge, MIT Press).Google Scholar
Mooney, Chris, 2005. The Republican War on Science (New York, Basic).Google Scholar
National Science Board. 2008a. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, National Science Foundation).Google Scholar
National Science Board, 2008b. Research and Development: essential foundation for U.S. competitiveness in a global economy (Arlington, National Science Foundation).Google Scholar
Noruzi, Alireza, 2005. “Google Scholar: the next generation of citation indexes” Libri, 55, pp. 170-180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen-Smith, Jason, 2005. “Commercial Imbroglios: proprietary science and the contemporary university” in Moore, K., and Frickel, S., eds., The New Political Economy of Science: Institutions, Networks, Power (University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Price, Derek de Solla, 1963. Little Science, Big Science (New york, Columbia University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Derek de Sdla, 1976. Science since Babylon (New Haven, Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Scheiding, Thomas, 2006. “Publish and Perish”, Ph.D. Economics, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven, 2008b. The Scientific Life: a moral history of a late Victorian vocation (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, Robert, 2008. “Relations between national research investment and publication output: application to an American Paradox”, Scientometrics, 74 (2), pp. 191-205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shulman, Seth, 2006. Undermining Science in the Bush Administration (Berkeley, University of California Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinzor, Rena, Wagner, Wendy and Shudtz, Matthew, 2008. Saving Science from Politics. www.progressivereform.orgGoogle Scholar
Testa, James, 2003. “The ISI Journal Selection Process,” Serials Review, 29, pp. 210-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thursby, Jerry and Thursby, Marie, 2006. Here or There? A Survey of Factors in Multinational RandD Location (Washington, National Academies Press).Google Scholar
Tijssen, Robert, 2004. “Is the Commercialization of Scientific Research Affecting the Production of Public Knowledge?”, Research Policy, 33, pp. 709-733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007. Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air. Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Wendy and Steinzor, Rena, eds., 2006. Rescuing Science from Politics (New York, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washburn, Jennifer, 2005. University, Inc. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar