Blind matching versus matchmaking: Comparison group selection for highly creative researchers

This research examines approaches for constructing a comparison group relative to highly creative researchers in nanotechnology and human genetics in the US and Europe. Such a comparison group would be useful in identifying factors that contribute to scientific creativity in these emerging fields. Two comparison group development approaches are investigated. The first approach is based on propensity score analysis and the second is based on knowledge from the literature on scientific creativity and early career patterns. In the first approach, the log of citations over the years of activity in the domains under analysis produces a significant result, but the distribution of matches is not adequate at the middle and high ends of the scale. The second approach matches highly creative researchers in nanotechnology and human genetics with a comparison group of researchers that have the same or similar early career characteristics were considered: (1) same first year of publication (2) same subject category of the first publication, (3) similar publication volume for the first six years in the specified emerging domain. High levels of diversity among the highly creative researchers, especially those in human genetics, underscore the difficulties of constructing a comparison group to understand factors that have brought about their level of performance.

[1]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution , 2006 .

[2]  D. Simonton Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist , 2004 .

[3]  Andrea Fernández-Ribas,et al.  The impact of participation in R&D programs on R&D partnerships , 2005 .

[4]  Zora Simic,et al.  Outliers: The Story of Success [Book Review] , 2009 .

[5]  D. Simonton Origins of genius : Darwinian perspectives on creativity , 1999 .

[6]  Andrea Fernández-Ribas,et al.  The impact of firm participation in R&D programmes on R&D partnerships , 2008 .

[7]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[8]  Francis Narin,et al.  Bibliometric performance measures , 1996, Scientometrics.

[9]  Glänzel Wolfgang,et al.  A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication , 2004 .

[10]  R. Burt Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  A. Porter,et al.  How interdisciplinary is a given body of research , 2008 .

[12]  J. Youtie,et al.  How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? , 2009, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[13]  Donald B. Rubin Matched Sampling for Causal Effects: Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores , 2006 .

[14]  R. Merton,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1975, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

[15]  M. Newman Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law , 2005 .

[16]  Donald Rubin,et al.  Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  Thomas Heinze,et al.  Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective , 2007, Scientometrics.

[18]  J. Youtie,et al.  Refining search terms for nanotechnology , 2008 .

[19]  David F. Channell Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1999 .

[20]  P. Shapira,et al.  Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research , 2009 .

[21]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

[22]  E. Garfield Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[23]  D. Rubin,et al.  Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score , 1984 .

[24]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Evaluating and Comparing the innovation performance of the United States and the European Union Expert report prepared for the TrendChart Policy Workshop 2005 , 2005 .

[25]  D. Cordray,et al.  The Burroughs Wellcome Career Award in the Biomedical Sciences , 2008, Evaluation & the health professions.

[26]  Paul D. Allison,et al.  Event History Analysis : Regression for Longitudinal Event Data , 1984 .

[27]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience , 2009, Scientometrics.

[28]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Citation analysis of research performer quality , 2004, Scientometrics.