Measuring science: An exploration
Measuring science: An exploration
复制标题
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.93.23.12664
复制
发表时间：
1996-11-12
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Griliches, Z
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adams, J;Griliches, Z
本文研究了美国现有的学术研究和开发（R&D）支出的数据和发表的论文数量和引用这些论文的数量作为可能的措施的“输出”的企业，我们看看这些数字的科学和工程作为一个整体，为五个选定的主要领域，并在个别大学领域的水平。《科学与工程指标》中公布的数据意味着，使用已发表论文作为“产出”衡量标准的学术研发回报急剧减少，这些数据是相当有问题的。使用一组更新的论文和引文数据，基于一组“扩大”的期刊和新发布的经济分析局研发平减指数，彻底改变了局面，消除了收益递减的表象，但提出了一个问题，即为什么学术研究与开发的投入价格的增长速度比国内生产总值平减指数或工业中隐含的研究与开发平减指数快得多。它表明“拥有”R&D的回报显着递减，以论文数量为因变量的估计值的R&D系数徘徊在0.5左右，如果以总引用次数为因变量，则在0.6左右，当我们将科学家和工程师代替R&D作为右侧变量时，论文的系数从0.5上升到0.8，引文系数从0.6上升到0.9，表明R&D作为科学产出生产的唯一投入存在系统计量问题。但考虑到个别大学的场效应，这些数字大大低于统一。因为从总体上看，论文数量和引文的增长速度与研发一样快，甚至更快，这一发现可以解释为来自其他领域、其他大学和其他国家的溢出效应的贡献具有重要但无法衡量的作用。
This paper examines the available United States data on academic research and development (R&D) expenditures and the number of papers published and the number of citations to these papers as possible measures of ''output'' of this enterprise, We look at these numbers for science and engineering as a whole, for five selected major fields, and at the individual university field level. The published data in Science and Engineering Indicators imply sharply diminishing returns to academic R&D using published papers as an ''output'' measure, These data are quite problematic Using a newer set of data on papers and citations, based on an ''expanding'' set of journals and the newly released Bureau of Economic Analysis R&D deflators, changes the picture drastically, eliminating the appearance of diminishing returns but raising the question of why the input prices of academic R&D are rising so much faster than either the gross domestic product deflator or the implicit R&D deflator in industry, A production function analysis of such data at the individual field level fallows. It indicates significant diminishing returns to ''own'' R&D, with the R&D coefficients hovering around 0.5 for estimates with paper numbers as the dependent variable and around 0.6 if total citations are used as the dependent variable, When we substitute scientists and engineers in place of R&D as the right-hand side variables, the coefficient on papers rises from 0.5 to 0.8, and the coefficient on citations rises from 0.6 to 0.9, indicating systematic measurement problems with R&D as the sole input into the production of scientific output. But allowing for individual university field effects drives these numbers down significantly below unity. Because in the aggregate both paper numbers and citations are growing as fast or faster than R&D, this finding can be interpreted as leaving a major, yet unmeasured, role for the contribution of spillovers from other fields, other universities, and other countries.