The scientific production of NOVA evolvement and prospects

The scientific production of NOVA: evolvement and prospects Update of the bibliometric study of NOVA June 29 th, 2012

Bibliometric analysis Main objectives: q Assess the impact of NOVA publications (articles, letters, reviews) in journals indexed to Wo. S and compare with the results of the previous studies (2000 -06 & 2002 -08) q Identify areas of excellence, strengths, and weaknesses q Benchmark NOVA with other Portuguese and European Universities q Map collaborative research and design instruments for research management

Wo. S “coverage” of NOVA and units P (04 -10) % Refs Wo. S NOVA 4671 80 (79) FCT 2521 76 (75) FCSH 54 19 (10) Nova SBE 203 57 (57) FCM 430 89 (90) ISEGI 69 52 (49) ITQB 1301 89 (88) IHMT 284 86 (86) ENSP 37 66 (67) Solid conclusions can be withdrawn for the majority of the Natural and Exact Sciences, where the coverage of Web of Science is excellent

Wo. S “coverage” of FCT departments P (04 -10) % Refs Wo. S FCT 2521 76 DCSA 15 33 DQ 999 88 DEC 50 52 DI 141 36 DCR 67 68 DCT 41 46 DEE 212 57 DCEA 158 64 DCV 162 84 DCM 422 81 DM 175 58 DEMI 56 38 DF 212 83 DCTB 40 75

Production and normalized impact Publication period Production Impact CPP/FCSm Impact MNCS 2000 -2006 3350 0. 87 0. 95 2002 -2008 3995 (+19%)* 0. 95 (+9%)* 1. 0 (+5%)* 2004 -2010 4671 (+39%)* 0. 98 (+13%)* 1. 02 (+7%)* * percentages are relative to 2000 -2006 CPP/FCSm, Field Normalized Citation Impact - this indicator compares the average number of citations excluding self-citations (CPP) obtained by a research unit to the international reference value (FCSm, the mean field(s) citation score). It is a normalized indicator that corrects for differences in “citation habits” among scientific areas MNCS, Mean Normalized Citation Score – New indicator that replaced CPP/FCSm in 2010. It is also a normalized indicator, but the calculation method is different If CPP/FCSm or MNCS values are between 0. 8 -1. 2 the impact is similar to the international average. A value >1. 2 means that the impact is above average

Evolution of impact 1. 2 1. 00 Normalized impact (CPP/FCSm) 1 0. 88 0. 82 0. 8 0. 72 0. 82 0. 75 0. 87 1. 03 1. 05 0. 89 0. 80 0. 66 0. 4 0. 2 0 93 -99 98 -01 00 -03 02 -05 04 -07 06 -09 The impact of NOVA publications has been increasing and reached 1. 05 in 2007 -2010

Highly-cited papers (2004 -2008) 600 559 500 1997 -2000 400 1998 -2001 300 200 1999 -2002 283 2000 -2003 2001 -2004 154 2002 -2005 133 100 2004 -2008** 57 28 3 0 Top 20% Top 10% 35 Top 5% Top 1% Top 20% - 559 (9% lower than expected) Top 10% - 283 (9% lower) Top 5% - 133 (14% lower) Top 1% - 35 (13% higher) – 17 with corresponding author from UNL ** 2004 -2008 papers counted in 5 years; all other data corresponds to 4 years

Scientific areas of highest impact and production IMPACT Humanities & Arts Other Social Sci Medicine Psychology, Psychiatry & Behav Sci Economics Multidisciplinary Engineering Appl Physics & Chem Geosciences Mathematics Chemistry Physics & Astronomy Mol Biol & Biochem Biol Sci Animals & Plants Biol Sci Humans Clinical Medicine PRODUCTION 1. 3 0. 91 0. 96 1. 11 0. 93 1. 32 0. 94 1. 03 1. 07 0. 66 1. 17 0. 87 0. 78 1. 51 0. 97 0. 99 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 Impact Arrows identify areas with significant output (>200) and impact close / above international average: Biological Sciences-Animals & Plants (1. 51), Chemistry (1. 17), Geosciences (1. 07), Applied Physics & Chemistry (1. 03), Clinical Medicine (0. 99), Biological Sciences-Humans (0. 97), Engineering (0. 94)

Subfields of highest impact and production IMPACT PRODUCTION Physics, Applied 76 1. 77 Mat Sci, Ceram Eng, Chemical 30 1. 6 1. 59 Food Sci & Technol 1. 25 Chem, Physical 1. 23 Eng, Elec & Electr 1. 22 Chemistry, Multidisc 1. 21 Parasitology 42 1. 3 Plant Sciences 119 1. 19 Pharmacol&Pharmacy 39 178 49 73 1. 12 Microbiology 221 1. 14 Math, Appl 107 1. 11 Chem, Inorg & Nuc 170 1. 06 Chem, Organic 261 1. 1 Marine & Freshw Biol 41 1. 06 Environmental Sci 123 86 1. 01 Physics, Cond Mat 27 1. 01 Chem, Analytical 80 0. 97 Biotech & Appl Mic 47 0. 96 0 0. 5 1 Impact 171 1. 5 2 0 100 200 Number of publications 300

Units: output and normalized impact (CPP/FCSm) 00 -06 Impact 02 -08 Production Impact 04 -10 Production Impact Production FCT 0. 79 1901 0. 84 2265 0. 91(15%) 2521(33%) FCSH 1. 39 26 2. 03 32 1. 60 (15%) 54 (104%) 0. 7 124 0. 84 163 0. 94 (34%) 203 (64%) FCM 0. 56 169 0. 78 279 0. 90 (61%) 430 (254%) ISEGI 0. 72 22 0. 77 30 ITQB 1 1053 1. 09 1161 IHMT 0. 73 217 0. 89 243 ENSP 1. 52 25 0. 7 NOVA 0. 87 3350 0. 95 Nova SBE 0. 95 (32%) 69 (157%) 1. 10 (10%) 1301 (24%) 0. 96 (32%) 284 (31%) 36 0. 55 (-44%) 37 (48%) 3995 0. 98(13%) 4671(39%)

Conclusions The number of publications increased 39% from 3350 in 2000 -2006 to 4671 in 2004 -2010 The field normalized citation impact of NOVA, CPP/FCSm, increased 13% from 0. 87 in 2000 -2006 to 0. 98 in 2004 -2010. The Mean Normalized Citation Score, MNCS, increased from 0. 95 to 1. 02 The number of highly cited papers has been increasing consistently The impact is above international average (>1. 2) for 8 subfields: Applied Physics; Material Sci Ceramics; Chemical Eng; Food Sci & Technol; Plant Sci; Physical Chemistry; Elect & Electr Eng; Multidisc Chem The impact of ITQB/IBET is clearly above world average (1. 1) The impact of FCT, Nova SBE, IHMT, FCM and ISEGI is close to average (≥ 0. 9) FCSH has a significant increase in impact when comparing with 2000 -2006 but the indicators are still based on a relatively low number of publications

Benchmarking

Benchmark universities Portugal Porto Lisboa Técnica de Lisboa Coimbra Aveiro Minho Algarve Belgium Katholieque Univ Leuven Libre Bruxelles Switzerland ETH Zurich Germany Stuttgart Technical Univ Dresden Austria Technical Univ Wien Greece Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki Spain Granada Sevilha Autónoma Barcelona France Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier Paris 5 René Descartes Italy Perugia Poland Krakov Ireland Dublin City Univ United kingdom Bath Southampton Leeds Finland Helsinki Turku Abo Akademi Univ Denmark Aarhus Univ of Southern Denmark The Netherlands Utrecht Twente Norway Bergen Norwegian Univ of Sci & Technol Trondheim Czech Republic Masaryk Univ Brno

NOVA vs 35 benchmark universities: main scientific areas Humanities & Arts Other Social Sci Medicine Psychology, Psychiatry & Behav Sci Economics Multidisciplinary Engineering Appl Physics & Chem Benchmark univs Geosciences UNL 04 -10 Mathematics Chemistry Physics & Astronomy Mol Biol & Biochem Biol Sci Animals & Plants Biol Sci Humans Clinical Medicine 0 0. 5 1 Impact (MNCS) 1. 5 2

NOVA vs univs PT: main scientific areas Humanities & Arts Other Social Sci Medicine Psychology, Psychiatry & Behav Sci Economics Multidisciplinary Engineering Appl Physics & Chem Univs PT Geosciences UNL 04 -10 Mathematics Chemistry Physics & Astronomy Mol Biol & Biochem Biol Sci Animals & Plants Biol Sci Humans Clinical Medicine 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 Impact (MNCS) 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6

NOVA vs 35 benchmark universities: subfields with highest impact at NOVA The impact of UNL is significantly above* the benchmark universities in: ü ü ü Applied Physics Mat Sci, Ceramics Chemical Eng Elec & Electr Eng Physical Chemistry * Differences in impact higher than 0. 15

NOVA vs Portugal: subfields with highest impact at NOVA The impact of UNL is significantly above* the impact of Portugal in: ü ü ü Applied Physics Mat Sci, Ceramics Chemical Eng Elec & Electr Eng Plant Sciences Physical Chemistry Multidisc Chemistry Parasitology Microbiology Organic Chemistry Applied Mathematics * Differences in impact higher than 0. 15

Ranking: position of NOVA among 365 top world universities that produce more than 700 publications per year indexed to Web of Science

Ranking based on impact (2004 -2010) and comparison with 2000 -2006 World Top 51 -75 Biol Sci Animals & Plants - Ranked 66 ↑ World Top 126 -150 Humanities & Arts - Ranked 140 ↑ World Top 176 -270 in 9 areas: Economics - Ranked 189 ↑ Chemistry - 221 ↑ Geosciences - 226 ↑ Other Social Sci - 235 ↑ Social Sci Medicine - 242 ↑ Applied Physics & Chemistry - 249 ↑ Multidisciplinary Sci - 259 ↑ Engineering - 265 ↑ Biol Sci Humans - 269 ↓ Rank in 2004 -2010 and change in position compared to 2000 -2006

Research collaboration at NOVA

Research Collaboration 49 50 50 International Collaboration 35 33 32 National Collaboration 16 17 18 0 10 20 30 40 0. 91 0. 87 0. 72 04 -10 No Collaboration National Collaboration No Collaboration 1. 08 1. 04 0. 99 International Collaboration 0. 78 0. 72 00 -06 50 % of publications 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 Normalized impact (CPP/FCSm) External collaboration, in particular international collaboration, is extremely relevant and with high impact 02 -08

Collaboration between NOVA units (2004 -2010) FCT FCSH Nova SBE FCM ISEGI ITQB IHMT ENSP FCT 0 6 36 4 156 15 1 218 FCSH 0 0 0 0 Nova SBE 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 FCM 36 0 0 1 7 13 3 60 ISEGI 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 7 ITQB 156 0 0 7 0 6 0 169 IHMT 15 0 0 13 0 6 3 37 ENSP 1 0 0 3 7 218 0 8 60 7 169 37 7 506/2=253 (5. 4% of total publications) with FCT / Total = 86. 1% FCT-ITQB / Total = 61. 7%

Collaboration between FCT departments 2004 -2010 DCSA DQ DEC DI DCR DCT DEE DCEA DCV DCM DM DEMI DF DCTB DCSA 0 0 0 0 DQ 0 0 0 28 0 11 19 15 21 0 0 11 2 107 DEC 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 7 DI 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 DCR 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 35 DCT 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 DEE 0 11 1 1 0 0 0 2 80 0 3 0 0 98 DCEA 0 19 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 22 DCV 0 15 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 3 25 DCM 0 21 1 0 2 0 80 1 4 1 0 16 0 126 DM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 6 DEMI 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 DF 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 16 2 0 0 31 DCTB 0 0 2 107 0 2 0 35 0 4 0 98 1 22 3 25 0 126 0 3 0 31 6 6 472/2=236 - 9. 4% of total FCT publications Multiple research cultures within FCT

Research collaboration – comparison with 2000 -2006 intra UNL – 194 (5. 8% of total publications) intra FCT – 192 (10. 0% of FCT publications) 2004 -2010 intra UNL – 253 (5. 4% of total publications) intra FCT – 236 (9. 4% of FCT publications) How to promote a culture of collaborative and transdisciplinar research at NOVA?