Sharif University of Technology (Sharif Policy Research Institute)Science and Technology Policy Letters2476-722004120140421Lead articleLead article361189FAEbrahimSouzanchi KashaniJournal Article20160810https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1189_6e524f2c6e92460c222b96a1746cd471.pdfSharif University of Technology (Sharif Policy Research Institute)Science and Technology Policy Letters2476-722004120140421Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigmsTechnological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms7261190FAParisaAlizadehJournal Article20160810This paper locates the notion of technological revolutions in the neo-Schumpeterianeffort to understand innovation and to identify the regularities, continuities anddiscontinuities in the process of innovation. It looks at the microand mesofoundationsof the patterns observed in the evolution of technical change and at theinterrelations with the context that shape the rhythm and direction of innovation. Onthis basis it defines technological revolutions, examines their structure and the rolethat they play in rejuvenating the whole economy through the application of theaccompanying techno-economic paradigm. This over-arching metaparadigm orshared best practice ‘common sense’ is in turn defined and analyzed in itscomponents and its impact, including its influence on institutional and socialchange.This paper locates the notion of technological revolutions in the neo-Schumpeterianeffort to understand innovation and to identify the regularities, continuities anddiscontinuities in the process of innovation. It looks at the microand mesofoundationsof the patterns observed in the evolution of technical change and at theinterrelations with the context that shape the rhythm and direction of innovation. Onthis basis it defines technological revolutions, examines their structure and the rolethat they play in rejuvenating the whole economy through the application of theaccompanying techno-economic paradigm. This over-arching metaparadigm orshared best practice ‘common sense’ is in turn defined and analyzed in itscomponents and its impact, including its influence on institutional and socialchange.https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1190_6da82d90e8ac15297f789610fdadeea3.pdfSharif University of Technology (Sharif Policy Research Institute)Science and Technology Policy Letters2476-722004120140421The evolution of evaluation models: from Frascati manual to innovation surveysThe evolution of evaluation models: from Frascati manual to innovation surveys27461191FAAliBabaeeEbrahimSouzanchiJournal Article20160810Models and indicators which are based on ‘Research and Development’, ‘patent’, and ‘bibliometrics’ could be considered as the oldest, best known and most widely used models and indicators among policy makers in most of the countries. Among these models and indicators, the most famous one is the Frascati manual. These R&D and patent based models (especially the Frascati manual) are mainly extracted from so-called ‘linear Science-Push’ theories. However, these linear theories have been criticized for three decades, seriously by well-known science, technology, and innovation scholars such as Richard Nelson, Nathan Rosenberg, and Chris Freeman. The achievement of these criticisms isthat in the two recent decades we could see the rising of alternative models and indicators,above of which the surveys entitled‘Innovation Surveys’. The main aim of this article is to review these emerging models more closely.In this article, first of all we will take a brief look at the history of science, technology, and innovation studies, especially the rise of major criticisms on thelinear science-push theories. After that it will be reviewedthat how the innovation surveys stood against the inefficiencies of science-push models. Then we will take a look at different types of innovation surveys, especially ‘Community Innovation Survey (CIS)’ which is the most widely accepted and standardized version of innovation surveys. Finally we will show in brief the considerable extent that these surveys are accepted and welcomed by academic community.Due to the widespread use of innovation surveys in many countries, there is an increasingly necessity to pay more attention to these surveys in our country Iran, especially as a basis for policy making.Models and indicators which are based on ‘Research and Development’, ‘patent’, and ‘bibliometrics’ could be considered as the oldest, best known and most widely used models and indicators among policy makers in most of the countries. Among these models and indicators, the most famous one is the Frascati manual. These R&D and patent based models (especially the Frascati manual) are mainly extracted from so-called ‘linear Science-Push’ theories. However, these linear theories have been criticized for three decades, seriously by well-known science, technology, and innovation scholars such as Richard Nelson, Nathan Rosenberg, and Chris Freeman. The achievement of these criticisms isthat in the two recent decades we could see the rising of alternative models and indicators,above of which the surveys entitled‘Innovation Surveys’. The main aim of this article is to review these emerging models more closely.In this article, first of all we will take a brief look at the history of science, technology, and innovation studies, especially the rise of major criticisms on thelinear science-push theories. After that it will be reviewedthat how the innovation surveys stood against the inefficiencies of science-push models. Then we will take a look at different types of innovation surveys, especially ‘Community Innovation Survey (CIS)’ which is the most widely accepted and standardized version of innovation surveys. Finally we will show in brief the considerable extent that these surveys are accepted and welcomed by academic community.Due to the widespread use of innovation surveys in many countries, there is an increasingly necessity to pay more attention to these surveys in our country Iran, especially as a basis for policy making.https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1191_f00d857e7c0822e22fa0f79387531508.pdfSharif University of Technology (Sharif Policy Research Institute)Science and Technology Policy Letters2476-722004120140421Indicators and models for measuring researchers’ scientific productivityIndicators and models for measuring researchers’ scientific productivity47621192FAHajarSotudehMaryamYaghtinJournal Article20160810The global increase in scientific production gave rise to a criticalneed for methods and tools formeasuring the scientific productivity of researchers, as accurately and objectively as possible, to ensure the quality of their scientific performance. There is several indicators and models proposed by scientometricians, each of them is<br />reflecting just a partial image of the scientific productivity. The indicators and models derived from thequantity of scientific papers published in prestigious journals are the most objective and accessible tools ever devised to measure the scientific productivity. However, they, alone, cannot completely reflect scientific productivity. Such indicators as publication rate and publication speed, which take time or publication frequencies into account, can be employed to get a more accurate image. Thispaperattempts to present and discuss some of the most important indicators and models proposed for measuring researchers’ scientific productivity.The global increase in scientific production gave rise to a criticalneed for methods and tools formeasuring the scientific productivity of researchers, as accurately and objectively as possible, to ensure the quality of their scientific performance. There is several indicators and models proposed by scientometricians, each of them is<br />reflecting just a partial image of the scientific productivity. The indicators and models derived from thequantity of scientific papers published in prestigious journals are the most objective and accessible tools ever devised to measure the scientific productivity. However, they, alone, cannot completely reflect scientific productivity. Such indicators as publication rate and publication speed, which take time or publication frequencies into account, can be employed to get a more accurate image. Thispaperattempts to present and discuss some of the most important indicators and models proposed for measuring researchers’ scientific productivity.https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1192_4390c216227f6054bcb72fd308e39ae7.pdfSharif University of Technology (Sharif Policy Research Institute)Science and Technology Policy Letters2476-722004120140421How has science journalism developed and grown in the national and international level?How has science journalism developed and grown in the national and international level?63781193FAAliAkbarAsadiMohammadTohidiJournal Article20160810The paper answers this question, with institutional approach and qualitative method, that how science journalism has developed and grown from the second half of the twentieth century. We can give an answer to the question: science journalists have established the national and international institutions in other to train, create incentive, support other journalists, connect them together and reinforce this occupation in the media. In the mid-twentieth century in developed countries, such as United States, Britain and France, these institutions were established in the form of science journalist associations. Also the international associations of science journalism were formed after the second half of sixties. The science journalists constituted World Federation of Science Journalists (WCSJ) for centralizing the development of their occupation in global level.WCSJis the latest specialist institution in science journalism and represents 40 national and international associations in 2002. Also it is already developing and growing activities.The paper answers this question, with institutional approach and qualitative method, that how science journalism has developed and grown from the second half of the twentieth century. We can give an answer to the question: science journalists have established the national and international institutions in other to train, create incentive, support other journalists, connect them together and reinforce this occupation in the media. In the mid-twentieth century in developed countries, such as United States, Britain and France, these institutions were established in the form of science journalist associations. Also the international associations of science journalism were formed after the second half of sixties. The science journalists constituted World Federation of Science Journalists (WCSJ) for centralizing the development of their occupation in global level.WCSJis the latest specialist institution in science journalism and represents 40 national and international associations in 2002. Also it is already developing and growing activities.https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1193_4f6aa052e0cb4153d37a226c6e414572.pdfSharif University of Technology (Sharif Policy Research Institute)Science and Technology Policy Letters2476-722004120140421Recognizing the entrepreneurial intelligence developed in veteran entrepreneurs’ experiencesRecognizing the entrepreneurial intelligence developed in veteran entrepreneurs’ experiences79921194FAGhanbar MohammadiElyasiNooshinDahimJournal Article20160810Exploring the opportunities in the knowledge and practices of entrepreneurs has a great importance. Entrepreneurial alertness is a critical and effective factor in discovering opportunities. Despite the undeniable importance of alertness in entrepreneurial activities, there is not any valuable research conducted on how to develop this human ability of entrepreneurs. Hence, this study aims to recognize the entrepreneurial alertness developing inveteran entrepreneurs. This study is using the narrative research method and technique derived from deep and meaningful interviews with 10 entrepreneurs in the food industry. It results that there is seven major categories describing the development of entrepreneurial alertness were identified as follows: Acquisition and use experience, create and the social networks, acting in consultation and dialogue, field visit, study the documents, create the relation and communicate with the markets andbenchmarking of leading foreign and domestic companies. Exploring the opportunities in the knowledge and practices of entrepreneurs has a great importance. Entrepreneurial alertness is a critical and effective factor in discovering opportunities. Despite the undeniable importance of alertness in entrepreneurial activities, there is not any valuable research conducted on how to develop this human ability of entrepreneurs. Hence, this study aims to recognize the entrepreneurial alertness developing inveteran entrepreneurs. This study is using the narrative research method and technique derived from deep and meaningful interviews with 10 entrepreneurs in the food industry. It results that there is seven major categories describing the development of entrepreneurial alertness were identified as follows: Acquisition and use experience, create and the social networks, acting in consultation and dialogue, field visit, study the documents, create the relation and communicate with the markets andbenchmarking of leading foreign and domestic companies. https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1194_5ecc7be387187494810f7dc94dc90468.pdfSharif University of Technology (Sharif Policy Research Institute)Science and Technology Policy Letters2476-722004120140421Obstacles for International Academic Collaboration: Case Study of Members of Tehran University Scientific Board in Co-Authorship of ISI indexed papersObstacles for International Academic Collaboration: Case Study of Members of Tehran University Scientific Board in Co-Authorship of ISI indexed papers931061195FAArefRiahiMohammad AminGhaneiradElhamAhmadiJournal Article20160810Objective: investigatingabout theobstacles forinternational academic collaboration and co-authorship from the point ofview of members ofTehran University scientific board. Research method: it is an applied research with a surveymethod byresearchermade questionnaire. The study population consists of 270 members of Tehran Universityacademic board. Reliability ofquestionnaire is assessed byCronbach's alpha coefficient for each variable separately; the results show its high reliability. Findings: the surveyshows that ‘political variable’ with mean of 3/53 is recognized as the most effective barrier to international academic collaboration. Cultural variable, in comparison with other elements, has had the lowest mean (2/21) and effectiveness. Findings, also, indicates a significant and negative correlation between individual’s international joint scientific products and three political, organizational and motivational variables. In other words,regarding these three variables, the lower number of co-authorship, the higher number of problems and barriers to researchers and vice versa.Objective: investigatingabout theobstacles forinternational academic collaboration and co-authorship from the point ofview of members ofTehran University scientific board. Research method: it is an applied research with a surveymethod byresearchermade questionnaire. The study population consists of 270 members of Tehran Universityacademic board. Reliability ofquestionnaire is assessed byCronbach's alpha coefficient for each variable separately; the results show its high reliability. Findings: the surveyshows that ‘political variable’ with mean of 3/53 is recognized as the most effective barrier to international academic collaboration. Cultural variable, in comparison with other elements, has had the lowest mean (2/21) and effectiveness. Findings, also, indicates a significant and negative correlation between individual’s international joint scientific products and three political, organizational and motivational variables. In other words,regarding these three variables, the lower number of co-authorship, the higher number of problems and barriers to researchers and vice versa.https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1195_0af47e590d9a4ed30179f762dd7d73ca.pdf