Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userThe ESO Survey of Non-Publishing Programmes
106
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
One of the classic ways to measure the success of a scientific facility is the publication return, which is defined as the number of refereed papers produced per unit of allocated resources (for example, telescope time or proposals). The recent studies by Sterzik et al. (2015, 2016) have shown that 30-50 % of the programmes allocated time at ESO do not produce a refereed publication. While this may be inherent to the scientific process, this finding prompted further investigation. For this purpose, ESO conducted a Survey of Non-Publishing Programmes (SNPP) within the activities of the Time Allocation Working Group, similar to the monitoring campaign that was recently implemented at ALMA (Stoehr et al. 2016). The SNPP targeted 1278 programmes scheduled between ESO Periods 78 and 90 (October 2006 to March 2013) that had not published a refereed paper as of April 2016. The poll was launched on 6 May 2016, remained open for four weeks, and returned 965 valid responses. This article summarises and discusses the results of this survey, the first of its kind at ESO.
rate research
Read More
Using the ESO Telescope Bibliography database telbib, we have investigated the percentage of ESO data papers that were submitted to the arXiv/astro-ph e-print server and that are therefore free to read. Our study revealed an availability of up to 96% of telbib papers on arXiv over the years 2010 to 2017. We also compared the citation counts of arXiv vs. non-arXiv papers and found that on average, papers submitted to arXiv are cited 2.8 times more often than those not on arXiv. While simulations suggest that these findings are statistically significant, we cannot yet draw firm conclusions as to the main cause of these differences.
The ESO telescope bibliography (telbib) dates back to 1996. During the 20+ years of its existence, it has undergone many changes. Most importantly, the telbib system has been enhanced to cater to new use cases and demands from its stakeholders. Based on achievements of the past, we will show how a system like telbib can not only stay relevant through the decades, but gain importance, and provide an essential tool for the observatorys management and the wider user community alike.
Conceptually exoplanet research has one foot in the discipline of Astrophysics and the other foot in Planetary Science. Research strategies for exoplanets will require efficient access to data and information from both realms. Astrophysics has a sophisticated, well integrated, distributed information system with archives and data centers which are interlinked with the technical literature via the Astrophysics Data System (ADS). The information system for Planetary Science does not have a central component linking the literature with the observational and theoretical data. Here we propose that the Committee on an Exoplanet Science Strategy recommend that this linkage be built, with the ADS playing the role in Planetary Science which it already plays in Astrophysics. This will require additional resources for the ADS, and the Planetary Data System (PDS), as well as other international collaborators
We propose a new performance indicator to evaluate the productivity of research institutions by their disseminated scientific papers. The new quality measure includes two principle components: the normalized impact factor of the journal in which paper was published, and the number of citations received per year since it was published. In both components, the scientific impacts are weighted by the contribution of authors from the evaluated institution. As a whole, our new metric, namely, the institutional performance score takes into account both journal based impact and articles specific impacts. We apply this new scheme to evaluate research output performance of Turkish institutions specialized in astronomy and astrophysics in the period of 1998-2012. We discuss the implications of the new metric, and emphasize the benefits of it along with comparison to other proposed institutional performance indicators.
We analyze the role of first (leading) author gender on the number of citations that a paper receives, on the publishing frequency and on the self-citing tendency. We consider a complete sample of over 200,000 publications from 1950 to 2015 from five major astronomy journals. We determine the gender of the first author for over 70% of all publications. The fraction of papers which have a female first author has increased from less than 5% in the 1960s to about 25% today. We find that the increase of the fraction of papers authored by females is slowest in the most prestigious journals such as Science and Nature. Furthermore, female authors write 19$pm$7% fewer papers in seven years following their first paper than their male colleagues. At all times papers with male first authors receive more citations than papers with female first authors. This difference has been decreasing with time and amounts to $sim$6% measured over the last 30 years. To account for the fact that the properties of female and male first author papers differ intrinsically, we use a random forest algorithm to control for the non-gender specific properties of these papers which include seniority of the first author, number of references, total number of authors, year of publication, publication journal, field of study and region of the first authors institution. We show that papers authored by females receive 10.4$pm$0.9% fewer citations than what would be expected if the papers with the same non-gender specific properties were written by the male authors. Finally, we also find that female authors in our sample tend to self-cite more, but that this effect disappears when controlled for non-gender specific variables.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
