This Article Free via Open Access: OA Figures Only OA Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supporting Information Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Request Copyright Permission Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kinney, A. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kinney, A. L. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

 Previous Article  | Table of Contents |  Next Article 

PHYSICAL SCIENCES / PHYSICS
National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research

A. L. Kinney^*

Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20771

Edited by Neta A. Bahcall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved September 17, 2007 (received for review May 11, 2007)

The "h index" proposed by Hirsch [Hirsch JE (2005) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16573] is a good indicator of the impact of a scientist's research and has the advantage of being objective. When evaluating departments, institutions, or laboratories, the importance of the h index can be further enhanced when it is properly calibrated for the size of the group. Particularly acute is the issue of federally funded facilities whose number of actively publishing scientists frequently dwarfs that of academic departments. Recently, Molinari and Molinari [Molinari JF, Molinari A (2008) Scientometrics, in press] developed a methodology that shows that the h index has a universal growth rate for large numbers of papers, allowing for meaningful comparisons between institutions. An additional challenge when comparing large institutions is that fields have distinct internal cultures, with different typical rates of publication and citation; biology is more highly cited than physics, for example. For this reason, the present study has focused on the physical sciences, engineering, and technology and has excluded biomedical research. Comparisons between individual disciplines are reported here to provide a framework. Generally, it was found that the universal growth rate of Molinari and Molinari holds well across the categories considered, testifying to the robustness of both their growth law and our results. The goal here is to set the highest standard of comparison for federal investment in science. Comparisons are made of the nation's preeminent private and public institutions. We find that many among the national science facilities compare favorably in research impact with the nation's leading universities.

federally funded facilities | physical sciences | science metrics

Author contributions: A.L.K. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0704416104/DC1.

*E-mail: anne.l.kinney{at}nasa.gov

© 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    What's this?

Current Issue | Archives | Online Submission | Info for Authors | Editorial Board | About Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Site Map Copyright © 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences