No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Can we estimate a monetary value of scientific publications?
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the compelling issue of monetary valuation of a scientific publication. While many academic scholars tend to overlook the topic, as being either too difficult or even meaningless, policymakers begin to use very rough tools for evaluating publications, which have many limitations, as we will discuss in this work. The main objective of this work is to address this open problem by stimulating further discussion on the topic and future research developments. We provide an overview of different methods to value scientific publications. We discuss their main hypotheses, pros and cons by means of an illustration based on Sapienza University of Rome. Although we begin to address the issue of monetary valuation of scientific publications, presenting a range of available methods and listing the limits and benefits of each, further methodological and empirical research is still needed to comply with policy and stakeholders' needs which we expect will increase in the near future.
... • The annual (average) salary of the author(s) ( ) in the first term of Eq. 2 is expressed in PPP in the case of authors from different countries taking on board the suggestion by Rousseau et al. (2021); ...
... Although this topic lies beyond the scope of our research, we agree with Morretta et al. (2022) that it warrants further exploration. We also support the suggestions by Rousseau et al. (2021), who propose using survey-based approaches, such as contingent valuation methods or choice experiment modelling, to examine both the use and non-use values of research as complementary evidence to MPC values. These surveys could target a representative sample of the scientific community, regardless of location or size, to elicit and infer the value of publications based on the knowledge they incorporate, their potential for breakthrough discoveries, and other key factors. ...
... How authors allocate their time among their catalogue of scientific products is not known a priori. Multi-country surveys to assess non-use values already exist and could be adapted to value scientific publications from global collaborations (Secci et al., 2023;Rousseau et al., 2021). After all, the primary mission of research, especially large-scale research infrastructures, is to generate new insights, theories, and breakthrough discoveries in their fields. ...
This paper addresses how to assign a monetary value to scientific publications, particularly in the case of multi-author papers arising from large-scale research collaborations. Contemporary science increasingly relies on extensive and varied collaborations to tackle global challenges in fields such as life sciences, climate science, energy, high-energy physics, astronomy, and many others. We argue that existing literature fails to address the collaborative nature of research by overlooking the relationship between coauthorship and scientists productivity. Using the Marginal Cost of Production (MCP) approach, we first highlight the methodological limitations of ignoring this relationship, then propose a generalised MCP model to value co-authorship. As a case study, we examine High-Energy Physics (HEP) collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, analysing approximately half a million scientific outputs by over 50,000 authors from 1990 to 2021. Our findings indicate that collaborative adjustments yield monetary valuations for subsets of highly collaborative papers up to 3 orders of magnitude higher than previous estimates, with elevated values correlating with high research quality. This study contributes to the literature on research output evaluation, addressing debates in science policy around assessing research performance and impact. Our methodology is applicable to authorship valuation both within academia and in large-scale scientific collaborations, fitting diverse research impact assessment frameworks or as self-standing procedure. Additionally, we discuss the conditions under which this method may complement survey-based approaches.
... This is particularly important at a time when there is increasing desire for public accountability of public expenditure. 3 Only a handful of studies, however, have implemented stated preferences (SP) procedures to eliciting preferences for scientific research, but they targeted to scientific community or specific research infrastructures' users instead of the lay public (Rousseau et al., 2021;Koundouri et al., 2021;Miller et al., 2013). ...
... We investigate on why the public would be prepared to financially support particle physics research at CERN and identify its drivers, i.e. interests, attitudes and socioeconomic traits. If people have preferences for knowledge advances without any immediate use, then non-use values need to be accounted for when investigating on the social impact of science (Rousseau et al., 2021). ...
... Second, our study suggests that citizens can reap non-use value of scientific research along with use-values. Next to such use values of research experienced by 'users' (Rousseau et al., 2021), e.g. by scientists through publications or by firms that can convert the results and spillovers of research into marketable and consumable products, we demonstrate that Swiss people would be prepared to pay for particle physics research whose development does not necessarily will lead to tangible benefits for them. The most conservative mean WTP for the investment 'Scenario A' is about CHF 55 (EUR 48) per person per year, which is likely to capture also non-use values arising from the desire by Swiss people that CERN can continue its research mission. ...
Large-scale projects in fundamental science, such as major particle colliders, radio telescopes, synchrotron light sources are promoted by scientific communities in the first place, mainly funded by governments, and ultimately by taxpayers. Little is known, however, about preferences of the latter except in the form of qualitative social attitudes survey. We suggest that understanding taxpayers' preferences in the form of their willingness to pay (a money metric) for fundamental science is feasible and informative. We have designed a contingent valuation (CV) experiment about public support of science as reflected in the preferences of Swiss taxpayers for particle physics research at CERN, the laboratory where the Higgs boson has been discovered in 2012. Differently from a previous study on the attitudes of French citizens, in this paper we propose a novel methodological framework by a dual repeated bidding mechanism where sub-samples of respondents are respectively given/not given the information on the implicit tax they already pay to support CERN in the first place. We find clear convergence of results between the groups and discuss why such a finding has policy and methodological implications for research on government funding of basic research. We compare findings in Switzerland and France. The experiment is replicable in different countries and scientific fields and opens the way to a new empirical research avenue on the public support to science.
... Indeed, the main benefits generated by research infrastructures such as the creation of knowledge outputs, technological externalities, human capital accumulation, the cultural impact of the outreach, and service provision may only capture the use-value of these assets. To estimate their total economic value, the benefits related to the non-use value should also be considered (Johansson, 2016;Rousseau et al., 2021). As stated by Johansson and Kristr€ om (2015, p. 24): "If the project being evaluated affects non-use values, this should be reflected in the cost-benefit analysis". ...
... For policy makers, this evidence would represent a step forward in relation to the longstanding political disputes in research funding on how to get more economic and social value for investments in research and innovation ( Giffoni & Vignetti, 2019;OECD, 2019;European Commission, 2018). In fact, the non-use value generated by research infrastructures adds to their use value (Rousseau et al., 2021) and may play in favour of economic benefits when costs and benefits of such infrastrutures are put at stake, and would avoid a bias in favour of the research promising more direct economic returns. ...
Large-scale research infrastructures such as particle colliders, radio telescopes, the International Space Station, are often funded through general taxation and taxpayers are called to contribute to scientific discovery. How much are people actually willing to pay for investments in science? What does drive such a giving behaviour? This paper explores the attitudes of young science-outsiders (the taxpayers of tomorrow) by a pilot experiment involving 230 undergraduate students in economics at University of Milan. The experiment takes the form of a Contingent Valuation Referendum-like interview aimed at eliciting the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the discovery potential of the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the most powerful particle accelerator worldwide. Our results point to the attitudes of students about fundamental science measured through their WTP. Building on this pilot experiment, we put forward recommendations for future research.
... We have found open access fees ranging from $750 [24] to $2200 per paper (the publisher of the present journal). We multiplied the total number of peer-reviewed papers reported by PIs through the XSEDE-operated reporting system by $1,475 (the midpoint of open access fees we found, which is less than the per paper value estimated in [25]) to calculate a total value for peer-reviewed papers. ...
This paper investigates the return on investment (ROI) in cyberinfrastructure (CI) facilities and services by comparing the value of end products created to the cost of operations. We assessed the cost of a US CI facility called XSEDE and the value of the end products created using this facility, categorizing end products according to the International Integrated Reporting Framework. The US federal government invested approximately 4.7B to $22.7B or more. Credit for the majority of these end products is shared among various contributors, including the XSEDE ecosystem. Granting the XSEDE ecosystem a seemingly reasonable percentage of credit for its contributions to end product creation suggests that the return on federal investment in the XSEDE ecosystem, in terms of value of end products created, was greater than one and possibly far greater than one. The Framework proved useful for addressing this question. Earlier work showed that the value of services provided by XSEDE was significantly greater than the cost of those services to the US federal government—a positive return on investment for delivery of services. Analyzing the financial efficiency of operations and the financial value of end products are two means for assessing the success of CI facilities in financial terms. Financial analyses should be used as one of many approaches for evaluating the success of CI facilities.
... La publicación científica es una arquitectura de datos en la evolución del conocimiento (Simon et al., 2020;Porter et al., 2020). La gestión eficiente de la política de investigación puede entenderse desde la publicación científica como un indicador social (Rousseau et al., 2021), cuyo éxito y acumulación de experiencia demanda la planificación de esfuerzos prácticos (Alkhuzaee et al., 2019), a partir de modelos o formatos (Kokkinaki et al., 2015). ...
Las interrogantes axiológicas son barreras que permiten identificar los errores metodológicos en la aceptación de las publicaciones científicas. El objetivo del estudio fue describir la selección crítica de la publicación científica mediante interrogantes axiológicas. El estudio se realizó en febrero del 2023. Mediante un muestreo no probabilístico por conveniencia desde el Google Académico se seleccionaron los 47 artículos de revisión comprendidos desde el 2022 al 2023. Se usó signos booleanos donde la ecuación de búsqueda fue en idioma inglés: "scientific writing" AND "scientific manuscript preparation" OR "scientific writing skills". La selección crítica de la publicación científica mediante interrogantes axiológicas describió, que hubo un bajo número de citas, y quizás la metodología no se detalló lo suficiente donde el 93,62% de los artículos científicos presentaron menos de 10 citas. Se concluyó, que las interrogantes axiológicas sobre el artículo científico posibilitaron la valoración contribuyente. El número de citaciones en los artículos científicos condicionan la posibilidad que se referencia.
... Третья группа методов определена комбинацией разных социолого-экономических походов в рамках денежной оценки исследований и результатов исследований, которую предложили итальянские специалисты С. Роуссо, Дж. Каталано и Л. Дарайо [20]. ...
Publication activity in modern society is presented as a driving force of scientific and technological development and as an indicator of university management reporting. The article is devoted to the study of approaches to determining the monetary value of a scientific publication, taking into account different behavior’s motives of researchers and teachers in higher education as authors. The methodological basis of the study was formed by concepts of creating a public good and financial good, concepts of scientific productivity and academic remuneration, neoclassical and neoinstitutional economic theories, approaches to the implementation of state policy in the field of science and education in terms of stimulating scientific publications. Research methods: critical and comparative analysis, with the inclusion of three groups of methods: a) the study of direct and indirect authors’ motives and traps in the publication of scientific papers; b) asset evaluation methods; c) a combination of socio-economic campaigns for monetary evaluation of the results of scientific research. Asset valuation approaches have been adapted to assess the scientific publication’s value from the position of the author as a beneficiary. The theoretical and practical significance of the research lies in the contribution to the value dimension of scientific publications for their authors in the conditions of academic capitalism with potential opportunities to receive monetary income from the results of their research.
... Thus, publication in such journals is based on relationships and benefits. Therefore, this impedes the benefits of researchers and makes them feel that these scientific journals are only to publish studies that do not deserve to be published, though most publication costs are on the burden of authors themselves (Rousseau et al., 2021). Thus, in many cases researchers are found to be frustrated from the journal's treatment with them. ...
The present study aims to investigate the reality of scientific publication in media and communication sciences at Arab universities. To this end, an attempt was made to identify the difficulties and pressures hampering the scientific research process in the Arab environment. Furthermore, an effort was made to identify the publication methods and ways adopted in different specialized scientific fields. The study also shed light on such an important issue, namely the scientific publication development processes at Arab universities as well as the demands of professors at those universities. The sample group, which comprised researchers from different Arab universities, was asked to fill out an inventory in order for us to understand their positions regarding the reality of scientific publication in the Arab world. Results revealed it is necessary to attach importance to scientific research in the Arab world by providing the appropriate working and scientific research environment, by considering incentives for those who work in this area, and by providing different tools and technologies of scientific publication development. Such tools and technologies are to adhere to the international standards and to ignore personal relationships and bureaucracy in dealing with studies. To achieve this, all those working in Arab university institutions must work together.
... External influence has been studied using a range of techniques and methods, such as economic or statistical measures of income or intellectual property, or through impact case studies and testimonials (Reed et al. 2020;Rousseau et al. 2021). As research processes, discussions, and outputs increasingly occur online (Feldman et al. 2015;Veletsianos Science and Public Policy 519 2016), there has been an explosion of attention on 'altmetrics' or 'non-traditional scholarly impact measures that are based on activity in web-based environments' (Priem et al. 2012). ...
There is no singular way of measuring the value of research. There are multiple criteria of evaluation given by different fields, including academia but also others, such as policy, media, and application. One measure of value within the academy is citations, while indications of wider value are now offered by altmetrics. This study investigates research value using a novel design focusing on the World Bank, which illuminates the complex relationship between valuations given by metrics and by peer review. Three theoretical categories, representing the most extreme examples of value, were identified: ‘exceptionals’, highest in both citations and altmetrics; ‘scholars’, highest in citations and lowest in altmetrics; and ‘influencers’, highest in altmetrics and lowest in citations. Qualitative analysis of 18 interviews using abstracts from each category revealed key differences in ascribed characteristics and judgements. This article provides a novel conception of research value across fields.
... La tecnología de la información que comprende todo el proceso de innovación para el impacto, profundidad del aprendizaje, crecimiento y la evolución científico-técnica puede comprenderse desde la arquitectura relevante de cualquier minería tecnológica de textos donde el vínculo principal es la publicación científica (Madani, 2015;Zhang et al., 2018;Suominen et al., 2019;Porter et al., 2020). La publicación científica obedece a un indicador social de valor monetario (financiación de las investigaciones) que resulta evaluador sobre la gestión de calidad y concierne a una política de investigación (Rousseau et al., 2021). Aunque, toda publicación científica, es una clave conceptual de habilidades y por lo general, no forma parte de ningún programa de estudios (Simona et al., 2020), su éxito requiere un esfuerzo y planificación mediante las prácticas (Alkhuzaee et al., 2019), pero se necesita el aprendizaje de modelos a seguir y solo así, determinada experiencia se adquiere en esta actividad de comunicación (Kokkinaki et al., 2015). ...
The aim of the study was to analyze dimensions of value in the scientific manuscript. The study was conducted between May and July 2021, where the ScienceDirect database was accessed. The last five years of viewing was filtered and only the article publication types referred to the review and research. Through means of a systematic random probability sampling, 25 research articles were selected. 5% of the citations for each of the scientific articles of selection were analyzed and then the interpretation from the scientific problematization, statistical model of the selection variables, act and power of the scientific argumentation for four axiological barriers of dimensions of value that identify the scientific publication. It was observed in the scientific articles that the value dimensions of the axiological barriers showed coding of accepted responses. Likewise, the need to understand a hermeneutical key of the scientific manuscript is shown and with this, the search for the scientific effort for its recognition from how the manuscript should be written is considered. It is concluded that the dimensions of value from axiological barriers make it possible to understand the nature of the impact of scientific articles, since they determine the methodological domain of scientific research and its way of communicating it; however, the contributing analysis and guide for its probable publication is guaranteed from the hermeneutics of questions for each scientific manuscript.
Purpose
We aimed to measure the variation in researchers’ knowledge and attitudes towards bibliometric indicators. The focus is on mapping the heterogeneity of this metric-wiseness within and between disciplines.
Design/methodology/approach
An exploratory survey is administered to researchers at the Sapienza University of Rome, one of Europe’s oldest and largest generalist universities. To measure metric-wiseness, we use attitude statements that are evaluated by a 5-point Likert scale. Moreover, we analyze documents of recent initiatives on assessment reform to shed light on how researchers’ heterogeneous attitudes regarding and knowledge of bibliometric indicators are taken into account.
Findings
We found great heterogeneity in researchers’ metric-wiseness across scientific disciplines. In addition, within each discipline, we observed both supporters and critics of bibliometric indicators. From the document analysis, we found no reference to individual heterogeneity concerning researchers’ metric wiseness.
Research limitations
We used a self-selected sample of researchers from one Italian university as an exploratory case. Further research is needed to check the generalizability of our findings.
Practical implications
To gain sufficient support for research evaluation practices, it is key to consider researchers’ diverse attitudes towards indicators.
Originality/value
We contribute to the current debate on reforming research assessment by providing a novel empirical measurement of researchers’ knowledge and attitudes towards bibliometric indicators and discussing the importance of the obtained results for improving current research evaluation systems.
Hijacked from medical and health sciences, Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are widely (ab)used in many scientific domains. Considering the ability to provide transparency and replicability of research results, many scientists consider an SLR a safe avenue for attaining scientific impact, given that the theoretical probability of acceptance is relatively high. Relying on dual analysis of Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) and Network Analysis (NA), the study identifies key features associated with citation impact within top-tier SLRs. Next, the study introduces Rationale, Cogency, and Extent (RCE) criterion for evaluating potential markers that predict citation impact using two case studies of SLRs from engineering domain. The findings suggest that the informal logic for starting a review significantly correlates with citation impact. Additionally, journal- and author-level metrics, along with RCE composite scores, display significant difference between top- and bottom-ranked SLRs. Through NA, reporting the quality assessment of studies (QATR) emerges as the most influential node within the RCE network. Despite its lack of direct correlation with citation impact, we conclude that QATR is a moderating variable. Finally, the study concludes that a well-articulated research question, alignment with existing evidence, and rigorous data use collectively serve as a blueprint for producing a high-quality SLR.
Determining the priorities for sustainable development involves critical problems identifying, the conditions creating necessary for successfully solving such problems, and identifying a set of methods and tools to ensure that these conditions are met. The existing quantitative approaches to the priorities definition do not consider the problems of resource provision of scientific priorities. The developed expert system makes it possible to use effectively multilevel information-logical structures for the systematic analysis of scientific priorities according to many criteria. It allows ensuring the transition from research goals to methods of achieving these goals, the choice of specific means and the development of the necessary research methodology.
This paper provides a conceptual framework to estimate the socio-economic benefits of new knowledge generated within research infrastructures from the scientific community's perspective. We use Earth Observation (EO) satellites as a case study. Constructing, operating, and exploiting cutting-edge EO infrastructures is generating a vast amount of knowledge ultimately embodied in scientific publications. Using bibliometric and machine learning techniques, we analyse 1,235 publications in 1998–2018 related to Cosmo Skymed, the EO satellites constellation of the Italian Space Agency. Thanks to these satellites, 2,377 authors from 160 institutions and 68 countries worldwide have contributed to various subjects in several scientific fields. By using the marginal social value method in a cost-benefit analysis perspective, we conservatively estimate the value of such publications, including their marginal cost and value of citations. This original and straightforward approach can be used to estimate the socio-economic value of scientific publications produced within any research infrastructure, including universities, in any field of study.
National research assessments play a role in providing accountability—to funders, government and civil society—for the activities of largely autonomous research systems. Increasingly, an element of such assessments is the assessment of societal impact. In this article, I review the development of impact assessment, with a focus on the UK’s Research Excellence Framework, and consider implications and challenges for the future. Notwithstanding these challenges, I further argue that the assessment of societal impact needs to become a more central aspect of research evaluation. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.
Impact occurs when research generates benefits (health, economic, cultural) in addition to building the academic knowledge base. Its mechanisms are complex and reflect the multiple ways in which knowledge is generated and utilised. Much progress has been made in measuring both the outcomes of research and the processes and activities through which these are achieved, though the measurement of impact is not without its critics. We review the strengths and limitations of six established approaches (Payback, Research Impact Framework, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, monetisation, societal impact assessment, UK Research Excellence Framework) plus recently developed and largely untested ones (including metrics and electronic databases). We conclude that (1) different approaches to impact assessment are appropriate in different circumstances (2) the most robust and sophisticated approaches are labour-intensive and not always feasible or affordable (3) whilst most metrics tend to capture direct and proximate impacts, more indirect and diffuse elements of the research-impact link can and should be measured; and (4) research on research impact is a rapidly developing field with new methodologies on the horizon.
This paper proposes an Ontology-Based Data Management (OBDM) approach to coordinate, integrate and maintain the data needed for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policy development. The OBDM approach is a form of integration of information in which the global schema of data is substituted by the conceptual model of the domain, formally specified through an ontology. Implemented in Sapientia, the ontology of multi-dimensional research assessment, it offers a transparent platform as the base for the assessment process; it enables one to define and specify in an unambiguous way the indicators on which the evaluation is based, and to track their evolution over time; also it allows to the analysis of the effects of the actual use of the indicators on the behavior of scholars, and spot opportunistic behaviors; and it provides a monitoring system to track over time the changes in the established evaluation criteria and their consequences for the research system. It is argued that easier access to and a more transparent view of scientific-scholarly outcomes help to improve the understanding of basic science and the communication of research outcomes to the wider public. An OBDM approach could successfully contribute to solve some of the key issues in the integration of heterogeneous data for STI policies.
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. The review was chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, supported by an independent and multidisciplinary group of experts in scientometrics, research funding, research policy, publishing, university management and administration.
This review has gone beyond earlier studies to take a deeper look at potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators. It has explored the use of metrics across different disciplines, and assessed their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact. It has analysed their role in processes of research assessment, including the next cycle of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It has considered the changing ways in which universities are using quantitative indicators in their management systems, and the growing power of league tables and rankings. And it has considered the negative or unintended effects of metrics on various aspects of research culture.
The report starts by tracing the history of metrics in research management and assessment, in the UK and internationally. It looks at the applicability of metrics within different research cultures, compares the peer review system with metric-based alternatives, and considers what balance might be struck between the two. It charts the development of research management systems within institutions, and examines the effects of the growing use of quantitative indicators on different aspects of research culture, including performance management, equality, diversity, interdisciplinarity, and the ‘gaming’ of assessment systems. The review looks at how different funders are using quantitative indicators, and considers their potential role in research and innovation policy. Finally, it examines the role that metrics played in REF2014, and outlines scenarios for their contribution to future exercises.
Since the 1990s, the scope of research evaluations becomes broader as the societal products (outputs), societal use (societal references), and societal benefits (changes in society) of research come into scope. Society can reap the benefits of successful research studies only if the results are converted into marketable and consumable products (e.g., medicaments, diagnostic tools, machines, and devices) or services. A series of different names have been introduced which refer to the societal impact of research: third stream activities, societal benefits, societal quality, usefulness, public values, knowledge transfer, and societal relevance. What most of these names are concerned with is the assessment of social, cultural, environmental, and economic returns (impact and effects) from results (research output) or products (research outcome) of publicly funded research. This review intends to present existing research on and practices employed in the assessment of societal impact in the form of a literature survey. The objective is for this review to serve as a basis for the development of robust and reliable methods of societal impact measurement.
Since the 1990s, the scope of research evaluation has widened to encompass the societal products (outputs), societal use (societal references) and societal benefits (changes in society) of research. Research evaluation has been extended to include measures of the (1) social, (2) cultural, (3) environmental and (4) economic returns from publicly funded research. Even though no robust or reliable methods for measuring societal impact have yet been developed. In this study, we would like to introduce an approach which, unlike the currently common case study approach (and others), is relatively simple, can be used in almost every subject area and delivers results regarding societal impact which can be compared between disciplines. Our approach to societal impact starts with the actual function of science in society: to generate reliable knowledge. That is why a study (which we would like to refer to as an assessment report) summarising the status of the research on a certain subject represents knowledge which is available for society to access. Societal impact is given when the content of a report is addressed outside of science (in a government document, for example).
Social impact of research is difficult to measure. Attribution problems arise because of the often long time-lag between research
and a particular impact, and because impacts are the consequences of multiple causes. Furthermore, there is a lack of robust
measuring instruments. We aim to overcome these problems through a different approach to evaluation where learning is the
prime concern instead of judging. We focus on what goes on between researchers and other actors, and so narrow the gap between
research and impact, or at least make it transparent. And by making the process visible, we are able to suggest indicator
categories that arguably lead to more robust measuring instruments. We propose three categories of what we refer to as ‘productive
interactions’: direct or personal interactions; indirect interactions through texts or artefacts; and financial interactions
through money or ‘in kind’ contributions.
The continual escalation in academic journal prices threatens the quality and future of academic library collections. This situation arises from market forces that react to, and take advantage of, the unique characteristics of academic libraries and scholarly publishing. These characteristics include the unique role of academic libraries, in their mission of serving as accessible repositories of knowledge, and the unique activity of scholarly publishing, in which every journal title is unique without a close substitute. The combination of these of factors leads to the lowest price elasticity of demand for the libraries and the highest degree of product differentiation for each journal title. While some solutions being offered to alter the dilemma hold promise, the unique characteristics of the market appear to discourage more equitable pricing without a radical restructuring of the industry or of the relationships between the consumers and the producers of academic journals.
This book describes the new generation of discrete choice methods, focusing on the many advances that are made possible by simulation. Researchers use these statistical methods to examine the choices that consumers, households, firms, and other agents make. Each of the major models is covered: logit, generalized extreme value, or GEV (including nested and cross-nested logits), probit, and mixed logit, plus a variety of specifications that build on these basics. Simulation-assisted estimation procedures are investigated and compared, including maximum simulated likelihood, method of simulated moments, and method of simulated scores. Procedures for drawing from densities are described, including variance reduction techniques such as anithetics and Halton draws. Recent advances in Bayesian procedures are explored, including the use of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm and its variant Gibbs sampling. No other book incorporates all these fields, which have arisen in the past 20 years. The procedures are applicable in many fields, including energy, transportation, environmental studies, health, labor, and marketing.
Many countries have introducedevaluations of university research, reflectingglobal demands for greater accountability. Thispaper compares methods of evaluation usedacross twelve countries in Europe and theAsia-Pacific region. On the basis of thiscomparison, and focusing in particular onBritain, we examine the advantages anddisadvantages of performance-based funding incomparison with other approaches to funding.Our analysis suggests that, while initialbenefits may outweigh the costs, over time sucha system seems to produce diminishing returns.This raises important questions about itscontinued use.
This volume offers an exploration of major changes in the way
knowledge is produced in science, technology, social science,
& humanities, arguing that a new mode of knowledge production
promises to replace or radically reform established
institutions, disciplines, practices, & policies. A range of
features - reflexivity, transdisciplinarity, heterogeneity -
associated with the new mode of knowledge production are
identified to illustrate the connections between them & the
changing role of knowledge in social relations.
Methodological difficulties inherent in attempts to describe
a new mode of knowledge production are discussed, &
implications of this mode for science policy & international
economic competitiveness, collaboration, & globalization are
treated. The book is particularly relevant for those
concerned with educational systems, the changing nature of
knowledge, the social study of science, & the connections
between research & development, & social, economic, &
technological development. The book is presented in 7 Chpts
with a Preface & an Introduction. (1) Evolution of Knowledge
Production. (2) The Marketability and Commercialisation of
Knowledge. (3) Massification of Research and Education. (4)
The Case of the Humanities. (5) Competitiveness,
Collaboration and Globalisation. (6) Reconfiguring
Institutions. (7) Towards Managing Socially Distributed
Knowledge. References accompany each Chpt. 2 Tables. W.
Howard (Copyright 1995, Sociological Abstracts, Inc., all
rights reserved.)
Understanding the preferences of patients and health professionals is useful for health policy and planning. Discrete choice
experiments (DCEs) are a quantitative technique for eliciting preferences that can be used in the absence of revealed preference
data. The method involves asking individuals to state their preference over hypothetical alternative scenarios, goods or services.
Each alternative is described by several attributes and the responses are used to determine whether preferences are significantly
influenced by the attributes and also their relative importance. DCEs are widely used in high-income contexts and are increasingly
being applied in low- and middle-income countries to consider a range of policy concerns. This paper aims to provide an introduction
to DCEs for policy-makers and researchers with little knowledge of the technique. We outline the stages involved in undertaking
a DCE, with an emphasis on the design considerations applicable in a low-income setting.
A finite mixture approach toconditional logit models is developed in whichlatent classes are used to promoteunderstanding of systematic heterogeneity. The model is applied to wilderness recreationin which a branded choice experiment involvingchoice of one park from a demand system wasadministered to a sample of recreationists. The basis of membership in the classes orsegments in the sample involved attitudinalmeasures of motivations for taking a trip, aswell as their stated preferences overwilderness park attributes. The econometricanalysis suggested that four classes of peopleexist in the sample. Using the model toexamine welfare measures of some hypotheticalpolicy changes identified markedly differentwelfare effects than the standard singlesegment model, and provided insight into thedifferential impact of alternative policies. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002
In the face of restricted budgets, it is worthwhile to explore whether domestic and non-domestic users would be willing to contribute to the cost of managing natural areas. Specifically, we investigate preferences of Dutch and Belgian divers for a trip to the Oosterschelde, an estuary in the Netherlands close to Belgium. The travel cost estimates based on day trips reveal a consumer surplus of 108 and 197 euro per diving trip for Dutch and Belgian divers respectively. This leads to an estimated total access value of 21.7 million euro per year for recreational diving in the Oosterschelde. The choice experiment reveals little difference between preferences for dive characteristics of Dutch and Belgian respondents, with the exception of the presence of having a pub nearby and the difficulty of the dive. Yet, overall Belgian respondents have a higher willingness for diving in the Oosterschelde than Dutch respondents. While payment schemes, such as diving tags, can be interesting options for the agency to finance management of natural areas, limited public support and high administrative costs may be important obstacles.
The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, is the world's highest-energy particle accelerator. Its construction (1995–2008) required frontier technologies and close collaboration between CERN scientists and contracting firms. The literature on “Big Science” projects suggests that this collaboration generated economic spillovers, particularly through technological learning. CERN granted us access to its procurement database, including suppliers of LHC from 35 countries for orders over 10,000 Swiss Francs. We gathered balance-sheet data for more than 350 of these companies from 1991 to 2014, which include the years before and after that of the first order received. The study assesses, in quantitative terms, whether becoming a CERN supplier induced greater R&D effort and innovative capacity, thus enhancing productivity and profitability. The findings – which controlled for firms’ observable characteristics, macroeconomic conditions, and unobserved time, country, industry and firm-level fixed effects – indicate a statistically significant correlation between procurement events and company R&D, knowledge creation and economic performance. The correlation is chiefly driven by high-tech orders; for companies receiving non-high-tech orders, it is weaker, or even statistically not significant.
Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care takes a fresh and contemporay look at the growing interest in the development and application of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) within the field of health economics. The authors have written it with the purpose of giving the reader a better understanding of issues raised in the design and application of DCEs in health economics. The use of this relatively new instrument to value health and health care has now evolved to the point where a general text is necessary. The few existing books in this area are either research monographs or focus almost entirely on more advanced topics. By contrast, this book serves as a general reference for those applying the technique to health care for the first time as well as more experienced practitioners. Thus the book is relevant to post-graduate students and applied researchers with an interest in the use of DCEs for valuing health and health care and has international appeal.
The book comprises Chapters by highly regarded academics with experience of applying DCEs in the area of health. The first part of the book summarises how DCEs can be implemented, from experimental design to data analysis and the interpretation of results. In many ways this can be regarded as a crash course on the conduct of DCEs. Extensive reference is made throughout to other sources of literature where the interested reader can find further details. The book also includes a series of case studies illustrating the breadth of applications in health economics and some key methodological issues. Finally there is an overview of research issues discussed which the editors believe are at the leading edge of this field.
This research focuses on the development of performance measurement systems (PMS) in universities and discusses a possible move toward international harmonization. To this end, the case of Italy is examined. In particular, the new regulation issued by the national Agency (ANVUR) is examined and compared with the guidelines provided by the IPSASB, in the aim of shedding light on the gap between the Italian guidelines and the approach proposed at international level by the IPSASB. IPSASB guidelines represent a good reference for a harmonized PMS across EU member-States. Results evidence that the Italian guidelines fall short of the approach followed on the international scene, reducing international comparability and transparency.
Research is a key determinant of health improvement. However, there is little empirical evidence showing how the research conducted in hospitals affects healthcare outcomes. To address this issue, we used panel data of 189 Spanish public hospitals over the period 1996–2009 to estimate the causal effect of both clinical and basic research on hospitals’ efficiency, measuring their impact on the average length of stay (LOS). We considered two fixed effects econometric models; one for medical and the other for surgical specialties respectively. Our results show that increases in the quantity of research produced in medical (surgical) disciplines contribute significantly to the reduction of hospital LOS in medical (surgical) specialties. This effect is greater for hospitals with higher absorptive capacity (high R&D investment and with teaching status). There is also clear evidence that basic research produces efficiency gains in clinical outcomes. Furthermore, we have identified other important determinants of hospitals’ efficiency namely, hospitals’ characteristics, human resources, diagnostic activity, hospital investment and hospitals’ absorptive capacity. Finally, we evaluated the economic impact of increases in medical, surgical and basic research on hospitals’ cost efficiency gains by measuring the corresponding reduction in the average cost of stay in Spanish hospitals.
The present study aims at offering empirical evidence to improve existing knowledge and theory building on research infrastructure evaluation. Through an inductive case study research strategy, an innovative cost–benefit analysis framework has been used to assess the impact of an applied research infrastructure. The case study is the National Hadrontherapy Centre for Cancer Treatment (CNAO) located in Pavia (Italy). CNAO is an applied research facility specialised in hadrontherapy, an advanced oncological treatment showing clinical advantages as compared to traditional radiotherapy, at the same time being more expensive as it exploits non-commercial accelerators technology and sophisticated control and dose delivery systems. The analysis shows that with a fairly high probability the Centre provides a positive net contribution to society's welfare. Source of benefits are mainly health treatments to patients, for whom gains in terms of longer or better lives are guaranteed as compared to a counterfactual situation where they are treated with conventional therapies or they have no alternatives. Such benefits are the direct consequences of the application to end users of the knowledge developed in the Centre with research activities and are quantified and assessed on the basis of conventional cost–benefit analysis (CBA) approaches for health benefits. Additional benefits generated by the Centre are typical of research infrastructures in different scientific domains and refer to technological spillovers (namely creation of spin-offs, technological transfer to companies in the supply chain and to other similar facilities), knowledge creation (production of scientific outputs), human capital formation (training of doctoral students, technicians and professionals in the field of hadrontherapy) and cultural outreach (students, researchers and wider public visiting the facilities). Evidences show that the adopted CBA framework is a promising avenue as compared to existing alternative methodologies informing decision-making. Further research is however needed to fine tune the methodology, in particular for what concerns technological spillovers and knowledge creation benefits.
In this paper we develop a cost–benefit analysis of a major research infrastructure, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the highest-energy accelerator in the world, currently operating at CERN. We show that the evaluation of benefits can be made quantitative by estimating their welfare effects on different types of agents. Four classes of direct benefits are identified, according to the main social groups involved: (a) scientists; (b) students and young researchers; (c) firms in the procurement chain and other organizations; and (d) the general public, including onsite and website visitors and other media users. These benefits are respectively related to the knowledge output of scientists; human capital formation; technological spillovers; and direct cultural effects for the general public. Welfare effects for taxpayers can also be estimated by the contingent valuation of the willingness to pay for a pure public good for which there is no specific direct use (i.e., as non-use value). Using a Monte Carlo approach, we estimate the conditional probability distribution of costs and benefits for the LHC from 1993 until its planned decommissioning in 2025, assuming a range of values for some critical stochastic variables. We conservatively estimate that there is around a 90% probability that benefits exceed costs, with an expected net present value of about 2.9 billion euro, not considering the unpredictable applications of scientific discovery.
Cost-benefit analysis is commonly thought of as a method for ranking projects according to their contributions to social welfare. The starting point of the present book is different. Rather than providing a final ranking, the purpose of a project analysis is to enable participants in a democratic decision-making process to make their own well-founded rankings of projects, according to their own normative views. Since ethical and political views differ, the analysis should be useful as factual background for any reasonable social welfare judgement. This purpose faces the analyst with quite different challenges than the purpose of ranking projects.
A new approach for modeling traveler trades-offs and choices is proposed, described, and illustrated. Based on research in psychology, marketing, and economics, a method for developing discrete choice models from controlled laboratory simulation experiments is developed and presented. The method is illustrated by means of several travel-choice-related examples and involve choice of mode and destination.
In this contribution, we measure how long researchers are willing to wait (WTW) for an editorial decision on the acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript. This measure serves as a proxy for the expected value of a publication to a researcher in the field of economic, business and financial history. We analyze how this WTW measure varies with the characteristics of the submitting authors themselves. We distinguish the impact of personal characteristics (including age, gender and geographic location) as well as work-related characteristics (including research discipline, affiliation and academic position). To identify the factors determining economic history authors’ WTW for editorial decisions, we use a valuation technique known as stated choice experiments. Our results show that respondents found the standing of the journal to be at least as important as its ISI impact factor. Moreover, we find differences in publication culture between economic and history departments. Overall, researchers’ willingness to wait is influenced to a greater extent by the research discipline in which the respondents are active (history vs. economics), than by their personal characteristics (e.g. the education or the type of Ph.D. they obtained).
In this article, we report on a discrete choice experiment to determine the willingness‐to‐wait ( WTW ) in the context of journal submissions. Respondents to our survey are mostly active in the information sciences, including librarians. Besides WTW , other attributes included in the study are the quality of the editorial board, the quality of referee reports, the probability of being accepted, the ISI impact factor, and the standing of the journal among peers. Interaction effects originating from scientists' personal characteristics (age, region of origin, motivations to publish) with the WTW are highlighted. A difference was made between submitting a high quality article and a standard article.
Among the interesting results obtained from our analysis we mention that for a high‐quality article, researchers are willing to wait some 18 months longer for a journal with an ISI impact factor above 2 than for a journal without an impact factor, keeping all other factors constant. For a standard article, the WTW decreases to some 8 months. Gender had no effect on our conclusions.
Article processing charges (APCs) are a central mechanism for funding open access (OA) scholarly publishing. We studied the APCs charged and article volumes of journals that were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals as charging APCs. These included 1,370 journals that published 100,697 articles in 2010. The average APC was 904 USD calculated over articles. The price range varied between 3,900 USD, with the lowest prices charged by journals published in developing countries and the highest by journals with high-impact factors from major international publishers. Journals in biomedicine represent 59% of the sample and 58% of the total article volume. They also had the highest APCs of any discipline. Professionally published journals, both for profit and nonprofit, had substantially higher APCs than journals published by societies, universities, or scholars/researchers. These price estimates are lower than some previous studies of OA publishing and much lower than is generally charged by subscription publishers making individual articles OA in what are termed hybrid journals. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
This paper applies the SIAMPI approach, which focuses on the concept of productive interactions, to the identification of the social impact of research in the social sciences. An extensive interview programme with researchers in a Welsh university research centre was conducted to identify the productive interactions and the perceived social impacts. The paper argues that an understanding of and focus on the processes of interaction between researchers and stakeholders provides an effective way to study social impact and to deal with the attribution problem common to the evaluation of the social impact of research. The SIAMPI approach thereby differentiates itself from other forms of impact assessment and evaluation methods. This approach is particularly well-suited to the social sciences, where research is typically only one component of complex social and political processes. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.
The authors integrate concepts in conjoint analysis and discrete choice theory in econometrics to develop a new approach to the design and analysis of controlled consumer choice or resource allocation experiments. The article is concerned with estimating the parameters of conjoint-type functions from discrete choice or allocation data. Emphasis is placed on the multinomial logit model and aggregate choice or allocation data to illustrate the concepts in a series of empirical examples ranging from simple to complex. The authors present limited external validity evidence to support the approach and make comparisons with traditional conjoint approaches.
In order to resolve questions frequently raised in the context of research evaluation about the citation rates of journal publications in relation to other types of publications, the total research output of substantial institutions or systems has to be brought under bibliographic control. That precondition has rarely been met: there are few published studies of the total range of publications of major research institutions, including books, book chapters, technical reports and published conference proceedings. The Research Evaluation and Policy Project (REPP) at the Australian National University (ANU) has established a database covering all the publications from the Institute of Advanced Studies (IAS), a fulltime research institution at the ANU, and has examined in detail citations in the journal literature accruing to all types of publications. The database contains a significant number of publications, nearly 30 000 items, and covers the sciences and the social sciences and humanities. This data enables us to examine whether the citation record of research publications appearing in journals indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) is a useable surrogate for the citation record within ISI journals of all model of publication. We contend that, if certain preconditions are met, the choice of citation rate is not critical.
Is more always better? We address this question in the context of
bibliometric indices that aim to assess the scientific impact of individual
researchers by counting their number of highly cited publications. We propose a
simple model in which the number of citations of a publication correlates with
the scientific impact of the publication but also depends on other 'random'
factors. Our model indicates that more need not always be better. It turns out
that the most influential researchers may have a systematically lower
performance, in terms of highly cited publications, than some of their less
influential colleagues. The model also suggests an improved way of counting
highly cited publications.
This paper theoretically models and econometrically tests the determinants of third-degree price discrimination concerning institutional versus individual pricing by the publishers for the top 99 journals in economics. Three measures of price discrimination are employed for the basis of all statistical analyses as they pertain to subscribers in the United States for the year 1985: the existence of price discrimination, an index of monopoly power as devised by Lerner (1943), and the difference between institutional and individual subscription prices. Unstandardized and standardized coefficient estimates from probit and least-squares regression methods are derived across each measure of price discrimination. Policy recommendations are offered given empirical findings for libraries as to how to limit the negative consequences of price discrimination practiced by publishers.
This note presents evidence for the surprising conclusion that a citation to a multiple-authored article is worth more to its author than a citation to a single-authored article.
Here we present the framework of a new approach to assessing the capacity of research programs to achieve social goals. Research
evaluation has made great strides in addressing questions of scientific and economic impacts. It has largely avoided, however,
a more important challenge: assessing (prospectively or retrospectively) the impacts of a given research endeavor on the non-scientific,
non-economic goals—what we here term “public values”—that often are the core public rationale for the endeavor. Research programs
are typically justified in terms of their capacity to achieve public values, and that articulation of public values is pervasive
in science policy-making. We outline the elements of a case-based approach to “public value mapping” of science policy, with
a particular focus on developing useful criteria and methods for assessing “public value failure,” with an intent to provide
an alternative to “market failure” thinking that has been so powerful in science policy-making. So long as research evaluation
avoids the problem of public values, science policy decision makers will have little help from social science in making choices
among competing paths to desired social outcomes.
KeywordsPublic values–Research choice–Research evaluation–Science policy–Market failure
This article critically reviews the literature on the economic benefits of publicly funded basic research. In that literature, three main methodological approaches have been adopted — econometric studies, surveys and case studies. Econometric studies are subject to certain methodological limitations but they suggest that the economic benefits are very substantial. These studies have also highlighted the importance of spillovers and the existence of localisation effects in research. From the literature based on surveys and on case studies, it is clear that the benefits from public investment in basic research can take a variety of forms. We classify these into six main categories, reviewing the evidence on the nature and extent of each type. The relative importance of these different forms of benefit apparently varies with scientific field, technology and industrial sector. Consequently, no simple model of the economic benefits from basic research is possible. We reconsider the rationale for government funding of basic research, arguing that the traditional ‘market failure’ justification needs to be extended to take account of these different forms of benefit from basic research. The article concludes by identifying some of the policy implications that follow from this review.
This paper brings together several research streams and concepts that have been evolving in random utility choice theory: (1) it reviews the literature on stated preference (SP) elicitation methods and introduces the concept of testing data generation process invariance across SP and revealed preference (RP) choice data sources; (2) it describes the evolution of discrete choice models within the random utility family, where progressively more behavioural realism is being achieved by relaxing strong assumptions on the role of the variance structure (specifically, heteroscedasticity) of the unobserved effects, a topic central to the issue of combining multiple data sources; (3) particular choice model formulations incorporating heteroscedastic effects are presented, discussed and applied to data. The rich insights possible from modelling heteroscedasticity in choice processes are illustrated in the empirical application, highlighting its relevance to issues of data combination and taste heterogeneity.
There is growing interest in establishing the extent of differences in willingness to pay (WTP) for attributes, such as travel time savings, that are derived from real market settings and hypothetical (to varying degrees) settings. Non-experiment external validity tests involving observation of choice activity in a natural environment, where the individuals do not know they are in an experiment, are rare. In contrast the majority of tests are a test of external validity between hypothetical and actual experiments. Deviation from real market evidence is referred to in the literature broadly as hypothetical bias. The challenge is to identify such bias, and to the extent to which it exists, establishing possible ways to minimise it. This paper reviews the efforts to date to identify and 'calibrate' WTP derived from one or more methods that involve assessment of hypothetical settings, be they (i) contingent valuation methods, (ii) choice experiments involving trading attributes between multiple alternatives, with or without referencing, or (iii) methods involving salient or non-salient incentives linked to actual behaviour. Despite progress in identifying possible contributions to differences in marginal WTP, there is no solid evidence, although plenty of speculation, to explain the differences between all manner of hypothetical experiments and non-experimental evidence. The absence of non-experimental evidence from natural field experiments remains a major barrier to confirmation of under or over-estimation. We find, however, that the role of referencing of an experiment relative to a real experience (including evidence from revealed preference (RP) studies), in the design of choice experiments, appears to offer promise in the derivation of estimates of WTP that have a meaningful link to real market activity, closing the gap between RP and SC WTP outputs.
Environmental protection is now an integral part of public policies, at local, national and global levels. In all instances, the cost and benefits of policies and projects must be carefully weighed using a common monetary measuring rod. Yet, many different categories of benefits and cost must be evaluated, such as health impacts, property damage, ecosystem losses and other welfare effects. Furthermore, many of these benefits or damages occur over the long term, sometimes over several generations, or are irreversible (e.g. global warming, biodiversity losses).
How can we evaluate these elements and give them a monetary value? How should we take into account impacts on future generations and of irreversible losses? How to deal with equity and sustainability issues? This book presents an in-depth assessment of the most recent conceptual and methodological developments in this area. It should provide a valuable reference and tool for environmental economists and policy analysts.
The possibility of measuring and comparing sustainability performance is generally taken for granted in management studies and practices based on the evaluation, selection and ranking of the supposedly best companies in the field. The purpose of this article is to question this basic assumption by analyzing the comparability of sustainability performance through a systematic review of 12 mining company reports using Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines. The analysis of information based on 92 GRI indicators raises serious questions concerning the hypothesis of measurability and comparability of sustainability performance, drawing attention to the main reasons that make it very difficult if not impossible to establish a credible and justifiable classification among organizations.
La possibilité de mesurer et de comparer les performances de développement durable est généralement prise pour acquise tant dans les recherches en gestion que dans les pratiques de classement ou de sélection des meilleures entreprises dans ce domaine. L’objectif de cet article est d’examiner cette hypothèse de mesurabilité et de comparabilité des performances de développement durable à partir de l’étude systématique de 12 rapports d’entreprises minières utilisant le même guideline du Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). L’analyse des informations relatives aux 92 indicateurs du GRI utilisés remet en cause l’hypothèse de comparabilité des performances de développement durable en mettant en lumière les principales raisons qui rendent pratiquement impossible l’établissement d’un classement crédible et justifiable entre les entreprises.
A laboratory experiment examined the potential for information bias in contingent valuation (CV). Consistent with the view that information about a public or private good can function as a persuasive communication, willingness to pay (WTP) was found to increase with the quality of arguments used to describe the good, especially under conditions of high personal relevance. Under low personal relevance, WTP for a public (but not for a private) good was higher when an altruistic, as opposed to an individualistic, orientation was activated. It is concluded that the nature of the information provided in CV surveys can profoundly affect WTP estimates, and that subtle contextual cues can seriously bias these estimates under conditions of low personal relevance.
Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Guide to Theory and Practice 8
- A Alberini
- A Longo
- M Veronesi
Alberini, A., Longo, A., Veronesi, M., 2007. Basic statistical models for stated choice
studies. In: Kanninen, B. (Ed.), Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice
Studies: A Common Sense Guide to Theory and Practice 8. Springer, pp. 203-227.
Willingness to pay for basic research: a contingent valuation experiment on the large hadron collider
- G Catalano
- M Florio
- F Giffoni
Catalano, G., Florio, M., & Giffoni, F. (2016). Willingness to pay for basic research: a
contingent valuation experiment on the large hadron collider. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1603.03580.
Introduction to Cost-Benefit Analysis
- G De Rus
De Rus, G., 2010. Introduction to Cost-Benefit Analysis. Edward Elgar.
Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects
- Dg Regio
DG Regio, 2014. Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects. http://ec.europa.
eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf.
Exploring cost-benefit analysis of research, development and innovation infrastructures: an evaluation framework
- M Florio
- S Forte
- C Pancotti
- E Sirtori
- S Vignetti
Florio, M., Forte, S., Pancotti, C., Sirtori, E., & Vignetti, S. (2016b). Exploring cost-benefit
analysis of research, development and innovation infrastructures: an evaluation
framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03654.
Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies
- R J Johnston
- K J Boyle
- W Adamowicz
- J Bennett
- R Brouwer
- T A Cameron
- W M Hanemann
- N Hanley
- M Ryan
- R Scarpa
- R Tourangeau
Johnston, R.J., Boyle, K.J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T.A.,
Hanemann, W.M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., 2017.
Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour.
Econ. 4 (2), 319-405.