37 years of scientific activity in a Biochemistry Department in Brazil: patterns of growth and factors leading to increased productivity

The role of knowledge management in driving academic advancement: empirical examination from the lens of the social cognitive theory

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the attitudes, skills and knowledge-based researchers’ competencies (ASK-RC), academic affiliation (AA) and knowledge management (KM) and its effect on promoting the growth of scholarly international publications (SIPs).

Design/methodology/approach

This research takes a quantitative approach relying on primary data gathered through a questionnaire-based survey. The study’s target population includes lecturers, managers and researchers involved in research activities in educational institutions. To operationalize the research framework, this study used social cognitive theory (SCT) and the academic community served as an empirical field of study.

Findings

The primary findings of this research are twofold: ASK-RC and AA are positively and statistically significantly associated with SIP; KM moderates the influence of ASK-RC on SIP.

Originality/value

This research adds to the current body of literature on research productivity by providing new information and empirical evidence on improving research productivity and international publication. Moreover, this research offers a new approach to the existing literature stream by operationalizing an underexplored framework from the lens of SCT. This study explains why scientific research productivity is becoming increasingly important to academia and stakeholders. Because scientific works are motivated by the goal of addressing general socioeconomic and environmental concerns, it is possible to address this concern based on SCT. Therefore, this research offers theoretical and managerial implications that may interest academics, professionals and policymakers.

Factors influencing scholarly publication productivity: a systematic review

Purpose

The importance of scientific publications has enhanced the research activities at all aggregate levels. The purpose of this paper is to conduct an in-depth review of studies examined the factors that influence the publication productivity among researchers, institutions and countries.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper uses a systematic literature review approach that is based on relevant literature retrieved from two authentic and well-known databases named Web of Science and SCOPUS. Kitchenham protocol of systematic review was applied, and relevant studies were searched by selected keywords search. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select high quality studies. A rigorous study selection procedure was designed.

Findings

Findings reveal that several factors play a significant role in the publication productivity growth. All of the identified factors were grouped into three categories. Most of the factors belong to personal category while two top dominant factors, funding and collaboration fall into situational category. Other most influential factors, time, academic rank and academic qualification are personal. Findings highlight that publication output at individual level is strongly influenced by personal factors while few environmental and situational factors also affect the number of publications. Publication productivity of institutes and countries is affected by environmental and situational factors.

Originality/value

This paper contributes by providing a detailed review to explore the influencing factors of scholarly publication of researchers, institutions and countries. This study will be supportive for researchers and policymakers for making strategies to stimulate the research publication practices at researchers, institutions and national level.

Economies of scale and scope in publicly funded biomedical and health research: evidence from the literature

BACKGROUND

Publicly funded biomedical and health research is expected to achieve the best return possible for taxpayers and for society generally. It is therefore important to know whether such research is more productive if concentrated into a small number of 'research groups' or dispersed across many.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic rapid evidence assessment focused on the research question: do economies of scale and scope exist in biomedical and health research? In other words, is that research more productive per unit of cost if more of it, or a wider variety of it, is done in one location? We reviewed English language literature without date restriction to the end of 2014. To help us to classify and understand that literature, we first undertook a review of econometric literature discussing models for analysing economies of scale and/or scope in research generally (not limited to biomedical and health research).

RESULTS

We found a large and disparate literature. We reviewed 60 empirical studies of (dis-)economies of scale and/or scope in biomedical and health research, or in categories of research including or overlapping with biomedical and health research. This literature is varied in methods and findings. At the level of universities or research institutes, studies more often point to positive economies of scale than to diseconomies of scale or constant returns to scale in biomedical and health research. However, all three findings exist in the literature, along with inverse U-shaped relationships. At the level of individual research units, laboratories or projects, the numbers of studies are smaller and evidence is mixed. Concerning economies of scope, the literature more often suggests positive economies of scope than diseconomies, but the picture is again mixed. The effect of varying the scope of activities by a research group was less often reported than the effect of scale and the results were more mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of predominant findings for or against the existence of economies of scale or scope implies a continuing need for case by case decisions when distributing research funding, rather than a general policy either to concentrate funding in a few centres or to disperse it across many.