The Sensationalist Discourse of Science Diplomacy: A Critical Reflection.
Flink, T. (2020).
The Sensationalist Discourse of Science Diplomacy: A Critical Reflection.
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 359-370. Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10032
|
Der geplante Ausstieg aus der Wissenschaft. Ein Praxisbeispiel aus strukturierten Promotionsformen der Geistes-, Kultur-, und Gesellschaftswissenschaften.
Hendriks, B. (2020).
Der geplante Ausstieg aus der Wissenschaft. Ein Praxisbeispiel aus strukturierten Promotionsformen der Geistes-, Kultur-, und Gesellschaftswissenschaften.
die hochschule. journal für wissenschaft und bildung, 1/2020.
|
Perspectives on translation in practice. How practitioners between bench and bedside evaluate biomedical translation.
Simons, A., Hendriks, B., Reinhart. M., & Ahmed, F. (2020).
Perspectives on translation in practice. How practitioners between bench and bedside evaluate biomedical translation.
Science & Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa035
|
Zum Profil praxisorientiert Promovierender in den Geistes-, Kultur- und Gesellschaftswissenschaften.
Hendriks, B., & Lietz, A. (2020).
Zum Profil praxisorientiert Promovierender in den Geistes-, Kultur- und Gesellschaftswissenschaften.
Ergebnisse aus der Begleitstudie „Wissenschaft und berufliche Praxis in der Graduiertenausbildung“. Projektbericht.
|
Wissenschaftsbefragung 2019/20 - Methoden und Fragebogen.
Ambrasat, J., Rucker, A., & Heger, C. (Hrsg.). (2020). Wissenschaftsbefragung 2019/20 - Methoden und Fragebogen. Berlin: DZHW.
|
The Open Innovation in Science Research Field: A Collaborative Conceptualisation Approach.
Beck, S., Bergenholtz, C., Bogers, M., Brasseur, T., Conradsen, M. L., Di Marco, D., ... & Xu, S. M. (2020).
The Open Innovation in Science Research Field: A Collaborative Conceptualisation Approach.
Industry and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1792274
|
Innovations in innovation policy: reconstructing the emergence, legitimation and dynamics of cluster policies in Germany.
Blümel, C. (2020).
Innovations in innovation policy: reconstructing the emergence, legitimation and dynamics of cluster policies in Germany.
Innovation: The European Journal for Social Science Research, Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1798216
|
Die Finanzierungs- und Beschäftigungssituation Promovierender: Aktuelle Ergebnisse der National Academics Panel Study.
Wegner, A. (2020).
Die Finanzierungs- und Beschäftigungssituation Promovierender: Aktuelle Ergebnisse der National Academics Panel Study.
(DZHW Brief 4|2020). Hannover: DZHW. https://doi.org/10.34878/2020.04.dzhw_brief
|
The implicit preference of bibliometrics for basic research.
Donner, P., & Schmoch, U. (2020).
The implicit preference of bibliometrics for basic research.
Scientometrics, 124, 1411-1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03516-3
Abstract
By individually associating articles to basic or applied research, it is shown that basic articles are cited more frequently than applied ones. Dividing the subject categories of the Web of Science into a basic and an applied part, the mean field-normalization rate is referred to the applied or basic part depending on the research orientation of the paper analysed. By this approach, a distinct difference of the citations for the applied and basic parts of most subject categories is found. However, differences of the citation scores of applied and basic research organisations are found as well, but are less clear. The explanation is that applied and basic research organisations generally publish a mix of basic and applied articles. [...]
|
Die Regierung der Wissenschaft im Peer Review.
Schendzielorz, C., & Reinhart, M. (2020).
Die Regierung der Wissenschaft im Peer Review.
der moderne Staat- Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 1/2020, 101-123. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v13i1.10
|
Die Evaluationsphase in Hochschulkooperationen.
Wagner, N., & Hornbostel, S. (2020).
Die Evaluationsphase in Hochschulkooperationen.
DUZ Wissenschaft & Management, 6/2020, 35-41. Berlin: DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus GmbH.
|
Assessing the Organizational Climate for Translational Research with a New Survey Tool.
Simons, A., Riedel, N., Toelch, U., Hendriks, B., Ohlraun, S., Liebenau, L., ... & Reinhart, M. (2020).
Assessing the Organizational Climate for Translational Research with a New Survey Tool.
Science and Engineering Ethics.
|
The independence of research - a review of disciplinary perspectives and outline of interdisciplinary prospects.
Gläser, J., Ash, M., Bunstorf, G., Hopf, D., Hubenschmid, L., Janßen, M., ... & Lieb, K. (2020).
The independence of research - a review of disciplinary perspectives and outline of interdisciplinary prospects.
1/2020. Berlin: TU Berlin.
|
Die Bestrafung wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens. Zwischen Selbstreinigung und autoritativer Sanktion.
Hesselmann, F. (2020).
Die Bestrafung wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens. Zwischen Selbstreinigung und autoritativer Sanktion.
Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
|
A validation of coauthorship credit models with empirical data from the contributions of PhD candidates.
Donner, P. (2020).
A validation of coauthorship credit models with empirical data from the contributions of PhD candidates.
Quantitative Science Studies, 1 (2), 551-564.
Abstract
A perennial problem in bibliometrics is the appropriate distribution of authorship credit for coauthored publications. Several credit allocation methods and formulas have been introduced, but there has been little empirical validation as to which method best reflects the typical contributions of coauthors. This paper presents a validation of credit allocation methods using a new data set of author-provided percentage contribution figures obtained from the coauthored publications in cumulative PhD theses by authors from three countries that contain contribution statements. [...]
|
