When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross‐community ties

The present study addresses the ongoing debate concerning academic scientific productivity. Specifically, given the increasing number of collaborations in academia and the crucial role networks play in knowledge creation, we investigate the extent to which building social capital within the academic community represents a valuable resource for a scientist's knowledge‐creation process. We measure the social capital in terms of structural position within the academic collaborative network. Furthermore, we analyse the extent to which an academic scientist's research specialization and ties that cross‐community boundaries act as moderators of the aforementioned relationship. Empirical results derived from an analysis of an Italian academic community from 2001 to 2008 suggest academic scientists that build social capital by occupying central positions in the community outperform their more isolated colleagues. However, scientific productivity declines beyond a certain threshold value of centrality, hence revealing the existence of an inverted U‐shaped relationship. This relationship is negatively moderated by the extent to which an academic focuses research activities in few scientific knowledge domains, whereas it is positively moderated by the number of cross‐community ties established. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Voice of Science on Climate Change in the Mainstream Turkish Press

This study aims to explore how the Turkish press represents the discourse of climate change scientists. This is achieved by analyzing climate change-related articles that quote scientists, directly and indirectly, in two Turkish mainstream newspapers (N = 132, 7 years). The Turkish case illustrates how scientific rhetoric is used for presenting climate change as a matter of concern in an industrializing country. The analysis suggests that climate science is portrayed as an un-discussed authority. News articles rely on data about the disturbance of species and the state of the natural environment to provide proof of global warming, by which they produce an implicit moral imperative. The articles also portray the worst threats and challenges—those pertaining to human society—as residing mostly in the future. We conclude by discussing the implications of the use of a projected future to convey a discourse emphasizing the alarming risks associated with climate change.     

知识生产视角下应急管理学科建设的使命与路径

为厘清应急管理学科建设机制、推进应急管理学科良性发展,通过回顾学科建设历史,来分析应急管理学科建设面临的困境与肩负的使命,并提出相应的建设路径.研究表明:在知识生产模式转型视角下,应急管理学科建设面临知识生产者离散、知识创新度不足、知识转化率有限的三重困境,需要完成"朝向人才培养的应急管理知识直接再生产""朝向科学研究...     

河北省进一步发展高等教育的初步探讨

河北省高等教育在全国排名榜中相对落后,与人口大省、经济大省不适应,其原因是多方面的。进一步发展高等教育对河北省实现向经济强省、文化强省跨越至关重要,为此河北省应将努力发展高等教育纳入"十二五"规划,适度扩大办学规模;加大投入;分类指导,突出重点,增强特色,推动内涵式发展;办强师资队伍及师德师风建设;鼓励高校开展科技创新。     

中型城市发展循环经济研究初探

以山东沿海城市日照为例,从转变发展思路、实践科学发展观,破解发展瓶颈、促进经济社会可持续发展,保持资源环境优势、增强区域持续竞争力三个方面分析了日照市发展循环经济的必要性和重要性。提出抓好“小循环”,构筑循环经济微观基础;搞好“中循环”,构筑循环经济示范基地;推进“大循环”,努力建设循环型社会是在当前中小城市经济欠发达、面临环境保护和发展经济双重压力下,实现经济社会又快又好发展的一条好路。     

崇明岛建设中的生态环境保护科技创新

崇明生态岛建设对科技创新的路径选择提出了很高的要求。崇明岛的生态科技创新,在解决资源、能源、环境等一系列与生态系统密切相关的问题中,发挥了重要的支撑和保障作用。在分析崇明生态岛建设过程中科技发展现状的基础上,提出了崇明生态岛建设中,利用科技创新规划生态建设和环境保护的思路：生态城镇的发展进程必须遵循生态学原则,重点发展低碳经济战略,节能减排,发展生态岛环境保护与资源循环利用技术体系。此外,还提出了崇明生态岛在新农村建设过程及生态文明建设中亟待解决的一些问题,进而使科技创新推动崇明岛生态建设的发展,实现人与自然的和谐。     

南方山区生态环境观测成果与展望

20世纪80年代以来,中国科学院南方山区综合考察队和中国科学院千烟洲红壤丘陵综合开发试验站(简称千烟洲站)的历代科研工作者从自然资源综合科学考察到农业科技攻关示范,再到应用基础理论研究,一步一个台阶,不仅为红壤丘陵区的生态恢复和生态经济可持续发展作出了突出贡献,而且在南方红壤丘陵区典型生态系统的物质循环过程、机理及其对全球变化的响应和适应机制方面取得了新的进展。论文以千烟洲站的发展为主线,对南方山区生态环境观测成果与发展进行简单评述。     

环保科技成果转化项目评价指标体系及评价方法

为贯彻《中华人民共和国促进科技成果转化法》,促进环境保护科技成果的转化,提出环保科技成果转化项目评价指标体系．经过对比,确立了计算权重的方法和权重．采用专家分析与层次分析法,进行了环境保护科技成果转化项目评价分值计算与转化项目的评价．     

塔里木河河道整治与生态建设科学考察及再思考

塔里木河是我国西北地区最大的内陆河流,如何实现流域水资源可持续利用和生态保护一直是国家和新疆各族人们关注的重大问题。论文通过对塔里木河新的科学考察的经过和体会介绍,就博斯腾湖向塔里木河下游输水的可持续性问题、水资源分配问题、塔里木河干流河道治理工程认识问题、对生态闸的认识和管理问题、胡杨林保护问题、塔里木河下游生态环境恢复等问题提出一些讨论,对塔里木河河道整治与生态建设提出初步咨询建议。     

Identifying key needs for the integration of social–ecological outcomes in arctic wildlife monitoring

For effective monitoring in social–ecological systems to meet needs for biodiversity, science, and humans, desired outcomes must be clearly defined and routes from direct to derived outcomes understood. The Arctic is undergoing rapid climatic, ecological, social, and economic changes and requires effective wildlife monitoring to meet diverse stakeholder needs. To identify stakeholder priorities concerning desired outcomes of arctic wildlife monitoring, we conducted in-depth interviews with 29 arctic scientists, policy and decision makers, and representatives of indigenous organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified and defined desired outcomes and documented links between outcomes. Using network analysis, we investigated the structure of perceived links between desired outcomes. We identified 18 desired outcomes from monitoring and classified them as either driven by monitoring information, monitoring process, or a combination of both. Highly cited outcomes were make decisions, conserve, detect change, disseminate, and secure food. These reflect key foci of arctic monitoring. Infrequently cited outcomes (e.g., govern) were emerging themes. Three modules comprised our outcome network. The modularity highlighted the low strength of perceived links between outcomes that were primarily information driven or more derived (e.g., detect change, make decisions, conserve, or secure food) and outcomes that were primarily process driven or more derived (e.g., cooperate, learn, educate). The outcomes expand monitoring community and disseminate created connections between these modules. Key desired outcomes are widely applicable to social–ecological systems within and outside the Arctic, particularly those with wildlife subsistence economies. Attributes and motivations associated with outcomes can guide development of integrated monitoring goals for biodiversity conservation and human needs. Our results demonstrated the disconnect between information- and process-driven goals and how expansion of the monitoring community and improved integration of monitoring stakeholders will help connect information- and process-derived outcomes for effective ecosystem stewardship.