

U.S. Academic Scientific Publishing
11.0 Key Factors Associated with Publication Counts at the Field Group LevelIn this section we develop models for the five field groups (i.e., biology, life and agricultural sciences (biolifeag); computer sciences; engineering, math and physical sciences (engmathphysical sciences); medical sciences; and social sciences and psychology (socsciences). Sections 11.1 and 11.2 discuss the models to explain fractional count publications and whole count publications in the expanding journal set, respectively. We initially performed separate regressions for each field group. However, finding that the explanatory variables are very similar (both across field groups and across the two publication measures), we found that the same three variables that were used to explain institutional level variability were able to explain most of the variability for individual field groups. In section 11.3, we model institutionlevel publications by modeling each field group separately and summing the expected publications to the institution level. The model's fit at the institution level show only a modest improvement. This suggests that institutional variations in the proportion of publications from various field groups (i.e., disciplinary concentration) does not especially help in explaining institutionlevel publications variability. In section 11.4, we examine the ratio of observed to expected publications over time by field group. Increases in resources used per publication were greatest for medical sciences and biolifeag (approximately 33%) and intermediate for socsciences (approximately 23%), with fairly constant trends during the entire time period from 1990 to 2001. Resources used per publication in the engmathphysical sciences field group increased about 15% from 1990 to 1997 and then reversed itself, resulting in a net increase of about 9% from 1990 to 2001. Resources used per publication in computer sciences followed an erratic pathway, resulting in an increase of approximately 13% over this time period. 11.1 Analyses of Fractional Count Publications in the Expanding Journal SetWe performed regression modeling for each field group using publications as measured by fractional counts in the expanding journal set as the dependent variable. The results (excluding variables with an incremental rsquare smaller than 0.01) and the cumulative rsquare values are as follows:
We compared the explanatory ability of the models listed above with a model including only total academic R&D expenditures, the number of S&E postdoctorates, and the number of S&E Ph.D. recipients in the five field groups. The rsquares for this simplified model[50] are as follows: 1) biolifeag (0.894), 2) computer sciences (0.686), 3) engmathphysical sciences (0.937), 4) medical sciences (0.857) and 5) socsciences (0.840). This simple 3 variable model was thus able to account for most (i.e., at least 89%) of the explanatory power of the field group specific models described above. The coefficients for the three variable regression model appear in table 5. S&E Ph.D. recipients appear to be more important in the biolifeag and medical sciences fields than in the other fields. Total academic R&D expenditures appear generally to be more important and postdocs less important in the medical sciences field than in the other fields. An interesting aspect of this table is that the coefficient for total academic R&D expenditures is larger in the institutionlevel regression than in all but one of the field groups, and the coefficient for S&E Ph.D. recipients is smaller in the institution level than for most of the field groups. 11.2 Analyses of Whole Count Publications in the Expanding Journal SetWe performed regression modeling for each field group using publications as measured by whole counts in the expanding journal set as the dependent variable. We obtained similar rsquares using the same explanatory variables in the fractional count models for two field groups, engmathphysical sciences and medical sciences. We obtained similar rsquares in the other three field groups but the type and number of explanatory variables varied between the fractional and whole count publication models.
We compared the explanatory ability of the models listed above with a model including only total academic R&D expenditures, the number of S&E postdoctorates, and the number of S&E Ph.D. recipients in the five field groups.[56] The rsquares for this simplified model are as follows: 1) biolifeag (0.902), 2) computer sciences (0.688), 3) engmathphysical sciences (0.937), 4) medical sciences (0.869) and 5) socsciences (0.835). This simple 3 variable model is thus able to account for most (i.e., at least 87%) of the explanatory power of the field group specific models described above. 11.3 Improving Model's Fit Using FieldSpecific Publication EstimatesEstimation of publications as measured by fractional and whole counts in the expanding journal set at the institution level can be slightly improved by combining field group specific estimates. We performed regressions for each individual fieldgroup and then combined the estimates to obtain expected publications at the institutionlevel. For publications as measured by fractional counts in the expanding journal set the rsquare for institutionlevel regression was 91.8% corresponding to a root mean square error (RMSE) of 175. The corresponding rsquare and RMSE for aggregated field group estimates were 93.8% and 153, respectively. Thus, RMSE was reduced by 12%. For publications as measured by whole counts in the expanding journal set, the rsquare for institutionlevel regression was 93.4% corresponding to a RMSE of 244. The corresponding rsquare and RMSE for aggregated field group estimates were 94.5% and 223. Thus, RMSE was reduced by 9%. 11.4 Ratio of Observed to Expected Publications Over TimeFigure 31 is a plot of the ratio of observed to expected publications as measured by whole counts in the expanding journal set by field group (normalized to 1988 equals 1.0). Values for 2000 were interpolated from expected publications from 1999 and 2001. Three of the field groups (biolifeag, medical sciences, and socsciences) show a decreasing trend, until about 1999, after which the curves are essentially flat. That is, these fields had increasing resource needs per whole count article over time, but recently have stabilized resource requirements. The trends for biolifeag and medical sciences are particularly similar. The other two field groups (computer sciences and engmathphysical sciences) do not demonstrate any particular trend until approximately 1998 or 1999, when they begin to increase, with the increase being particularly noteworthy for engmathphysical sciences. That is, the resources required per whole count article remains essentially flat for computer sciences and engmathphysical sciences over time, until most recently when they have begun to decrease. Figure 32 is a plot of the ratio of observed to expected publications as measured by fractional counts in the expanding journal set by field group (normalized to 1988 equals 1.0). Values for 2000 were interpolated from expected publications from 1999 and 2001. All of the field groups show a decreasing trend until about 1997. The trend is fairly steep, and is partially accounted for by increased resource requirements per whole count and partially by greater collaboration with other institutions. After 1997, three field groups (biolifeag, medical sciences, and socsciences) show a continuing decrease. Since the resource requirements per whole count stabilized during this time period, the continuing decrease in fractional counts must be attributable to continuing increases in collaboration. Two field groups (computer sciences and engmathphysical sciences) show flattening of the curve in the range of about 1996 to 1998, and increases in the ratio from 1998 to 2001. The most recent years were associated with dramatic decreases in resource needs per whole count publication, and the corresponding increase that we would expect in the ratio of observed to expected count publications as measured by fractional counts appears to be attenuated for these two fields by continuing increases in collaboration.
Footnotes
[45] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J1. [46] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J–2. [47] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J3. [48] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J4. [49] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J5. [50] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J6. [51] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J7. [52] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J8. [53] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J9. [54] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J10. [55] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J11. [56] Regression output is displayed in Exhibit J12. 
