Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups | Scientometrics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bibliometric studies often measure and compare scholarly performance, but they rarely investigate why universities, departments, and research groups do have different performance. In this paper we try to explain differences in scholarly performance of research groups in terms of organizational variables. In order to do this, we extensively review the relevant literature, and develop a model using two theoretical approaches. A multivariate analysis shows which of the independent variables do play a role in the various scholarly performance dimensions. The study shows what organizational strategies may help in optimizing performance in various dimensions. Implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper we restrict ourselves to the management and leadership factors that influence scholarly performance of research teams. We do not discuss other dimensions of performance, such as teaching performance, or societal outcomes. The general term ‘performance’ is used synonym for ‘scholarly performance’.

  2. “The set of resources made available to a group through members’ social relationships within the social structure of the group and in the broader formal and informal structure of the organization.” (Oh et al. 2004, 2006).

  3. See Katz and Martin (1997), for a conceptualization of research collaboration and their different forms. For a recent review: Bozeman & Boardman (2014).

  4. Non-response analysis shows that the respondents can be regarded as a representative sample of the Dutch biomedical and health research groups. The respondents were evenly distributed among the various research institutions and the sub-disciplines. Performance levels between respondents and non-respondents did not significantly differ.

  5. Conference visit, stay abroad, courses. Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.65.

  6. Meetings to discuss projects ideas; research proposals; new literature; draft papers) Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.7.

  7. Relating to different roles in the team: intensively participating in research, source of knowledge, generating new ideas, more researcher than manager, etc. Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.8.

  8. Up to date with the developments in the field; up to date with literature. Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.76.

  9. For productivity and quality, the scores were multiplied by 100 to get count data (integers).

References

  • Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from US universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34(3), 259–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. J., & Sloan, A. P. (1970). Communication networks in R and D laboratories. R & D Management, 1(1), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (1980). Inequality and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 10, 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, F. M. (1979). Motivation, diversity, and the performance of research units. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity The effectiveness of research groups in six countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1967). Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific teams. Personnel Psychology, 20(4), 497–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy, 39, 822–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babu, A. R., & Sing, Y. P. (1998). Determinants of research productivity. Scientometrics, 43(3), 309–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, L. L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department? Research in Higher Education, 25(3), 211–225.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note - Correlates of faculty publications. Sociology of Education, 51(2), 132–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland, C. J., & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review. Academic Medicine, 67(6), 385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, 63(1), 87–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2010). A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 211–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. (2008). Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in science and environmental politics, 8, 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman B, & Boardman C. (2014). Research collaboration and team science: a state of the art review and agenda. Springer.

  • Braam, R., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2010). Life cycles of research groups: the case of CWTS. Research Evaluation, 19, 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braam R. & Van den Besselaar P, (2014). Indicators for the dynamics of research organizations: a biomedical case study. Scientometrics, 99(3), 949–971.

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1998). Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N. (2003). Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy, 32(6), 887–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12(1), 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye, L., & Abeele, P. V. (2005). On research efficiency—A micro-analysis of dutch university research in economics and business management. Research Policy, 34(4), 495–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30(5), 699–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25(3), 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, S. P. L., Van Arensbergen, P., Daemen, F., Van der Meulen, B., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2011). Evaluation of research in context: an approach and two cases. Research Evaluation, 20(2), 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D. (1982). The management of academic culture—Notes on the management of meaning and social integration. Higher Education, 11(3), 303–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D.A., Smyth J.D. & Christian L.M. (2009) Internet, mail, and mixed-model surveys: the tailored design method. Hoboken: Wiley.

  • Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk-Krzesinski, H. F., Contractor, N., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Kane, C., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Research Evaluation, 20(2), 145–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (1992). Researh, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 542–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, L. F., Hemlin, S., & Husted, K. (2004). The role of knowledge management in R&D: a survey of Danish R&D leaders’ perceptions and beliefs. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(7–8), 820–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: poisson, overdispersed poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 392–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Brambila, C., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36, 1035–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodall, A. H. (2009). Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities. Research Policy, 38(7), 1079–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, A. (1999). Governmental policies and organisational change in higher education. Higher Education, 38, 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, E. E., & Keith, B. (1997). The academic research-teaching nexus in eight advanced-industrialized countries. Higher Education, 34(3), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groot, T., & García-Valderrama, T. (2006). Research quality and efficiency. An analysis of assessments and management issues in Dutch economics and business research programs. Research Policy, 35, 1362–1376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustad, J. W. (1960). The career decisions of college teachers. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, E. J. (2005). Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 787–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40, 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraszthy, A., & Szántó, L. (1979). Some problems of research planning: data from Hungary compared to other Round 1 countries. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity. The effectiveness of research groups in six countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, G., & Kaine, G. (1994). The determinants of research performance—A study of australian university economists. Higher Education, 27(2), 191–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J., Pettigrew, A., & Ferlie, E. (2002). The determinants of research group performance: towards mode 2? Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 746–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., Geng, X. S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2009). Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Research Policy, 38(2), 306–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 610–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornbostel, S., Böhmer, S., Klingsporn, B., Neufeld, J., & Von Ins, M. (2009). Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 79(1), 171–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, D., Wald, A., Franke, K., Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2007). Third party research funding and performance in research. On the effects of institutional conditions on research performance of teams. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59(1), pp. 125-149.

  • Johnes, G. (1988). Determinants of research output in economics departments in British-universities. Research Policy, 17(3), 171–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. M., Meador, M., & Walters, S. J. K. (1988). Effects of department size and organization ont the research productivity of academic economists. Economics of Education Review, 7(2), 251–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. M., Meador, M., & Walters, S. J. K. (1989). Academic research productivity, department size and organization: Further results. Economics of Education Review, 8(4), 345–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. (1978a). Influence of job longevity on employee reactions to task characteristics. Human Relations, 31(8), 703–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. (1978b). Job longevity as a situational factor in job satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 204–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

  • Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1979). Communication patterns, project performance, and task characteristics—Empirical-evaluation and integration in an R and D setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23(2), 139–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, B., & Babchuk, N. (1998). The quest for institutional recognition: a longitudinal analysis of scholarly productivity and academic prestige among sociology departments. Social Forces, 76(4), 1495–1533.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr, K. D., & Mittermeir, R. (1980). Publication productivity and professional position: Cross-national evidence on the role of organizations. Scientometrics, 2(2), 95–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, H. (1985). Cooperation structure, group-size and productivity in research groups. Scientometrics, 7(1–2), 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (1995). Are big university departments better than small ones. Higher Education, 30(3), 295–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laredo, P., & Mustar, P. (2000). Laboratory activity profiles: An exploratory approach. Scientometrics, 47(3), 515–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leisyte, L., Enders, J., & De Boer, H. (2008). The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch universities. Higher Education Policy, 21, 377–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, B., Van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersaeter, S., et al (2007). Indicators for comparative analysis of public project funding: concepts, implementation and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 243-256.

  • Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life-cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic position in scientific career. American Sociological Review, 43(6), 889–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1979). Entrance into the academic career. American Sociological Review, 44(5), 816–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & McGinnis, R. (1981). Organizational context and scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 46(4), 422–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Holdsworth, J. M., Anderson, M. S., & Campbell, E. G. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The effects of work-group size and organizational climate. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 311–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2008). Coexistence of university-industry relations and academic research: Barrier to or incentive for scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 76(3), 561–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research. Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12, 61–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Sempere, M. J., Garzon-Garcia, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Team consolidation, social integration and scientists’ research performance: An empirical study in the Biology and Biomedicine field. Scientometrics, 76(3), 457–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. (1979). Perspectives from psychology. In D. Lewis & W. Becker (Eds.), Academic rewards in higher education. Massachusetts: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006). The social network ties of group leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17(1), 64–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization. Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, 606–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mets, B., & Galford, J. A. (2009). Leadership and management of academic anesthesiology departments in the United States. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 21(2), 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2000). Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies. Scientometrics, 47(2), 323–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts. Scientometrics, 78(2), 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, H. S., Chung, M. H., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 860–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, H. S., Labianca, G., & Chung, M. H. (2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 569–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omta, S. W. F. (1995). Critical success factors in biomedical research and pharmaceutical innovation. Groningen: Rijks Universiteit Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omta, S. W. F., & De Leeuw, A. C. J. (1997). Management control, ucertainty, and performance in biomedical research in universities, institutes and companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 223–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oshagbemi, T. (2004). Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviour of managers. Employee Relations, 26(1), 14–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, D. C. (1956). Some social factors related to performance in a research organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(3), 310–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations. Productive Climates for Research and Development. New York–London–Sydney: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkoff, G. T. (1985). The research environment in family-practice. Journal of Family Practice, 21(5), 389–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pineau, C., & Levy-Leboyer, C. (1983). Managerial and organizational determinants of efficiency in biomedical research teams. In S. R. Epton, R. L. Payne, & A. W. Pearson (Eds.), Managing interdisciplinary research (pp. 141–163). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, A. A. M. (1990). Behind the scenes of performance: Performance, practice and management in medical research. Research Policy, 19, 517–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prpic, K. (1996). Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists’ productivity. Scientometrics, 36(2), 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28(2), 207–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reale, E., & Seeber, M. (2011). Organisation response to institutional pressures in Higher Education: the important role of the disciplines. Higher Education, 61, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B. F. (1979). Academic Sponsorship and Scientists Careers. Sociology of Education, 52(3), 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2003). Coping with environmental pressures: public research organisations responses to funding crises. Research Policy, 32, 1293–1308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 36(3), 311–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. K. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85, 581–594.

  • Sindermann, C. J. (1985). The joy of science. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeby, J. C., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 593–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J. F. A., Starmans, R., Bally, Y. W., Breemhaar, B., Nijhuis, F. J. N., & Vandorp, C. A. F. (1990). Prediction of Scientific Performance in Clinical Medicine. Research Policy, 19(3), 239–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankiewicz, R. (1976). Research groups and the academic research organization. Sociologisk Forskning, 13(2), 20–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankiewicz, R. (1979). The size and age of Swedish academic research groups and their scientific performance. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity. The effectiveness of research groups in six countries (pp. 191–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strandholm, K., Kumar, K., & Subramanian, R. (2004). Examining the interrelationships among perceived environmental change, strategic response, managerial characteristics, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 57, 58–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stvilia, B., Hinnant, C., Schindler, K., Worrall, A., Burnett, G., Burnett, K., et al. (2011). Team diversity and publication patterns in a scientific laboratory. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 270–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (2003). Scoreboards of research excellence. Research Evaluation, 12(2), 91–103.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External Communication and Project Performance—An Investigation into the Role of Gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), 1071–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urwick, L. F. (1956). The manager’s span of control. Harvard Business Review, 34, 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Grant committee membership: service or self-service? Journal of Informetrics, 6, 580–585.

  • Van den Besselaar, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Past performance, peer review, and project selection: A case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 273–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Weijden, I., De Gilder, D., Groenewegen, P., & Geerling, M. (2008a). Organizational culture, performance and career choices of Ph.D.s: A case study of Dutch Medical Researchers. Higher Education Policy, 21, 305–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Weijden, I., De Gilder, D., Groenewegen, P., & Klasen, E. (2008b). Implications of managerial control on performance of Dutch academic (bio)medical and health research groups. Research Policy, 37, 1616–1629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Weijden, I., Verbree, M., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). From bench to bedside: an exploratory study of the societal orientation in Dutch biomedical and health research groups. Science and Public Policy, 39(3), 285–303.

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandeberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy, 37, 1255–1266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbree, M., Van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2013a). Academic leadership of high-performing research groups. In S. Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, B. Martin, & M. Mumford (Eds.), Creativity and leadership in science, technology, and innovation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbree, M., Van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2013b). Age, generation and life cycle effects on academic leadership. In S. Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, B. Martin, & M. Mumford (Eds.), Creativity and leadership in science, technology, and innovation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visart, N. (1979). Communication between and within research units. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Scientific productivity The effectiveness of research groups in six countries (pp. 223–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Tunzelmann, N., Ranga, M., Martin, B., & Geuna, A. (2003). The effects of size on research performance: A SPRU review: SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research. Document Number).

  • Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 62(1), 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P. (1999). The citation culture. PhD thesis University of Amsterdam.

  • Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders. Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the very useful comments of two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Applied Sciences Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Maaike Verbree

  2. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag, The Netherlands

    Edwin Horlings

  3. VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Peter Groenewegen

  4. CWTS, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Inge Van der Weijden

  5. Department of Organization Sciences & Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Peter van den Besselaar

Authors
  1. Maaike Verbree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edwin Horlings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Groenewegen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Inge Van der Weijden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter van den Besselaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter van den Besselaar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verbree, M., Horlings, E., Groenewegen, P. et al. Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups. Scientometrics 102, 25–49 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1437-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1437-x

Keywords