Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complexity-based quality indicators for human and social capital in science and research: the case of Serbian Homeland versus Diaspora

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We developed quality indicators model for measuring human and social capital in the scientific and research communities, grounded in the complexity science. The model was implemented in two phases: in the first, we gathered initial data through the questionnaire designed for scientists and researchers; in the second, we fully analyzed all the respondents, according to the model—this included analysis of their CVs, with wider research of their data in all publicly available sources. The research sample included 444 PhD holders, 202 in Homeland and 242 in Diaspora, all of them being of Serbian origin. Among the most significant findings are the facts that Serbian PhDs from its Diaspora, compared with those living in the Homeland, published 4 times more papers, 6 times more in journals with IF; were cited 15 times more, in 14 times more documents; had 13 times higher value of overall IF; had both 5 times higher ResearchGate scores and the h-index values. In achieving all these, they perceived their work in science and research in more entrepreneurial manner and used collaboration strategies: on average, they had 4 times more co-authors than PhDs in the Homeland. On the other hand, PhDs working and living in the Homeland (Serbia) demonstrated higher devotion to the interests of wider communities they belonged to, considered succession planning as more important, and generally felt more afraid of risks that current trends of our civilization, especially regarding the lack of sustainable management, may lead our entire humanity to some form of collapse.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anand, H., & Haberer, J. (1978). Scientific and political orientation of American scientists. Research Policy,7, 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics,68, 329–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auriol, L., Schaaper, M., & Felix, B. (2012). Mapping careers and mobility of doctorate holders: Draft guidelines, model questionnaire and indicators—Third Edition. OECD science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2012/07, OECD Publishing.

  • Bagatelas, W. T., & Sergi, Bs. (2004). The Balkans ‘brain drain’—Its meaning and implications. SEER: Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe,6, 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics,82, 495–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barjak, F., & Robinson, S. (2008). International collaboration, mobility and team diversity in the life sciences: impact on research performance. Social Geography,3, 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, A. (2012). Some differences in research publications of Indian scientists in India and the diaspora, 1986–2010. Scientometrics,94, 1007–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudrillard, J. (1991). The precession of simulacra. In D. Hlynka & J. C. Belland (Eds.), Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic, and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology: A book of readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudrillard, J. (1995). Simulacra and simulation, histories of cultural materialism (The Body, in theory). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1962). Investment in human capital: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy,70, 9–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1994). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath, Y. (1980). The F-connection: Families, friends and firms and the organization of exchange. Population and Development Review,6, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A. O. (2005). Culture in a new scientific worldview. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies,17, 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boa, K. D., & Bowman, R. M., Jr. (2006). Faith has its reasons: Integrative approaches to defending the christian faith. Downers Grove: Green Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1983). Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In R. Kreckel (Ed.), Soziale Ungleichheiten (Soziale Welt, Sonderheft 2). Goettingen: Otto Schartz & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1975). The problem with human capital theory—A marxian critique. American Economic Review,65, 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, M., & Kitchin, R. (2008). Towards an Irish diaspora strategy: A position paper. NIRSA Working Paper 37.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management,22, 716–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkerhoff, J. (2004). Digital diasporas and international development: Afghan-Americans and the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Public Administration and Development,24, 397–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkerhoff, J. (2011). David and Goliath: Diaspora organizations as partners in the development industry. Public Administration and Development,31, 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. G. (1996). Keeping the score: Using the right metrics to drive world-class performance. New York: Quality Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. M., Braspenning, J., Hutchison, A., & Marshall, M. (2002). Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Quality and Safety in Health Care,11, 358–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canibano, C., & Bozeman, B. (2009). Curriculum vitae method in science policy and research evaluation: the state-of-the-art. Research Evaluation,18, 86–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, R. (2003). At the border between chaos and order: What psychotherapy and neuroscience have in common. In J. Corrigall & H. Wilkinson (Eds.), Revolutionary connections: Psychotherapy and neuroscience. London: Karnac.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, J. J. (2006). Overview of the structure of a scientific worldview. Journal of Religion & Science,41, 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, S. (2012). Education and economics: Disciplinary evolution and policy discourse. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbert, B. A. (2004). The complex resource-based view: Implications for theory and practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review,3, 341–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,Supplement 94, S95–S120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, T. (2006). Quality thinking and systems thinking. The TQM Magazine,18, 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1993). Science and design methodology: A review. Research in Engineering Design,5, 63–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djuric, M., & Filipovic, J. (2015). Human and social capital management based on complexity paradigm: Implications for various stakeholders and sustainable development. Sustainable Development,23, 343–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djuric, M., Filipovic, J., & Komazec, S. (2019). Reshaping the future of social metrology: Utilizing quality indicators to develop complexity-based scientific human and social capital measurement model. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02217-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodani, S., & LaPorte, R. E. (2005). Brain drain from developing countries: How can brain drain be converted into wisdom gain? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,98, 487–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. B., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook’friends’: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,12, 1143–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics,93, 373–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal,22, 338–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fell, C. B., & König, C. J. (2016). Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists. Scientometrics,108, 113–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filipovic, J. (2012). Management of a diaspora virtual university as a complex organization: serbian diaspora virtual university: An emerging leadership of a nation. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filipović, J., Devjak, S., & Putnik, G. (2012). Knowledge based economy: The role of expert diaspora. Panoeconomicus,59, 369–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finardi, U., & Buratti, A. (2016). Scientific collaboration framework of BRICS countries: An analysis of international coauthorship. Scientometrics,109, 433–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., & Maisano, D. (2007). Management by measurement: Designing key indicators and performance measurement systems. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frolov, I. T. (2003). Vvedenie v filosofiyu, 3-e izd. prerab. i dop. Moscow: Respublika.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (2000). Social capital and civil society. In Working Paper WP/00/74. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

  • Gallopin, G. (2002). Planning for resilience: Scenarios, surprises, and branch points. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformation in human and nature systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, L. L. (1964). The hyphenate in recent american politics and diplomacy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001a). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends,50, 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001b). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics,51, 69–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schlemmer, B. (2007). National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003) An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics,70, 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B., & Dore, C. (2005). Measuring the impacts of science: Beyond the economic dimension. INRS: Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goudard, M., & Lubrano, M. (2010). Human capital, social capital and scientific production. Paper presented at the conference “Measurement and evaluation of academic research performance: Policy implications”, Portugal.

  • Grant, A. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2009). The hot and cool of death awareness at work: Mortality cues, aging, and self-protective and prosocial motivations. Academy of Management Review,34, 600–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership,61, 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2005). Rethinking academic identities in neo-liberal times. Teaching in Higher Education,10, 421–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics,106, 787–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemlin, S. (2006). Creative knowledge environments for research groups in biotechnology. The influence of leadership and organizational support in universities and business companies. Scientometrics,67, 121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imran, S., Alam, K., & Beaumont, N. (2014). Reinterpreting the definition of sustainable development for a more ecocentric reorientation. Sustainable Development,22, 134–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ionescu, D. (2006). Engaging diasporas as development partners for home and destination countries: Challenges for policymakers. Geneva: International Organization for Migration.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2018). ISO 30414:2018—Human resource management—Guidelines for internal and external human capital reporting. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonkers, K., & Tijssen, R. (2008). Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of international mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity. Scientometrics,77, 309–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazlauskiene, A., & Rinkevicius, L. (2006). Lithuanian “brain drain” causes: Push and pull factors. Engineering Economics,46, 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, C. (2004). Crouching tiger, hidden dragon: A diasporic reading. Cinema Journal,43, 18–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, L. (2008). Complexity and educational research: A critical reflection. Educational Philosophy and Theory,40, 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, L., & Woog, R. (2005). Vortical postmodern ethnography: Introducing a complexity approach to systemic social theorizing. System Research and Behavioral Science,22, 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsov, Y. N. (2006). Diaspora networks and the international migration of skills. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, D.-B. (2009). Human capital and its measurement. Paper presented to The 3rd OECD World Forum on “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Busan, Korea.

  • Kyriacou, G. A. (1991). Level and growth effects of human capital: a cross country study of the convergence hypothesis. Working Paper 91-26. New York: C.V. Starr Centre.

  • Lazega, E., Mounier, L., Jourda, M.-T., & Stofer, R. (2006). Organizational vs. personal social capital in scientists’ performance: A multi-level network study of elite French cancer researchers (1996–1998). Scientometrics,67, 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. (1999). Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. Reading, PA: Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2007). The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations (Introduction to the topical issue). Scientometrics,70, 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Van Den Besselaar, P. (1997). Scientometrics and communication theory: Towards theoretically informed indicators. Scientometrics,38, 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology,29, 785–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukovits, I., & Vinkler, P. (1995). Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among coauthors. Social Indicators Research,36, 91–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J. F. (1993). The postmodern explained: Correspondence, 1982–1985. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddocks, J., & Beaney, M. (2002). See the invisible and intangible. Knowledge Management, March 2002, 16–17.

  • Maggino, F. (2017a). Dealing with syntheses in a system of indicators. In F. Maggino (Ed.), Complexity in society: From indicators construction to their synthesis. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggino, F. (2017b). Developing indicators and managing the complexity. In F. Maggino (Ed.), Complexity in society: From indicators construction to their synthesis. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magner, T. (2006). Digraphia in the territories of the Croats and Serbs. International Journal of the Sociology of Language,2001, 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marmolejo-Leyva, R., Perez-Angon, M. A., & Russell, J. M. (2015). Mobility and international collaboration: Case of the Mexican scientific diaspora. PLoS ONE,10, e0126720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, W. (1952). The latinisation of cyrillic characters. The Slavonic and East European Review,30, 531–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, W. H. (1998). History and the scientific worldview. History & Theory,37, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, P. (2012). The role of context in academic capitalism: The industry-friendly department case. The Journal of Higher Education,83, 26–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milosevic, D., Filipovic, J., Djuric, M., & Dobrota, M. (2014). Benchmarking diaspora performance as an input for policy makers: A comparative statistical analysis. Current Science,107, 1253–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteleone, S., & Torrisi, B. (2012). Geographical analysis of the academic brain drain in Italy. Scientometrics,93, 413–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscanell, N., & Utz, S. (2017). Social networking for scientists: An analysis on how and why academics use ResearchGate. Online Information Review,41, 744–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naugle, D. K. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A Review. Scientometrics,66, 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF. (1957). Basic research: A national resource. NSF 57-35. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office.

  • OECD. (2005). New fields of science classification of the Frascati manual. OECD NESTI, June 2005.

  • Ostriker, J. P., Kuh, C. V., & Voytuk, J. A. (2003). Assessing research-doctorate programs: A methodology study. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmberg, K. (2009). Complex adaptive systems as metaphors for organizational management. Learning Organization,16, 483–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1998). The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy,27, 793–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of selfconsciousness, self-awareness and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality,53, 435–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics,28, 664–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2017). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics,114, 159–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. C. (2009). An education in awareness: self, motivation, and self-regulated learning in contemplative perspective. Educational Psychologist,44, 119–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing,24, 183–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy,6, 21–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy,30, 509–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics,9, 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1990). International collaboration in the sciences, 1981–1985. Scientometrics,19, 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller, T. (2007). Reflections on the use of social capital. Review of Social Economy,65, 11–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutlz, T. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review,51, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciacovelli, L., & Plebani, M. (2009). The IFCC Working Group on laboratory errors and patient safety. Clinica Chimica Acta,404, 79–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shain, Y. (1999). Marketing the American creed abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and their homelands. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, D. (2014). Bridging human capital and social capital theories. In M. Russ (Ed.), Value creation, reporting, and signaling for human capital and human assets. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheffer, G. (1986). Modern diasporas in international politics. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Skute, I. (2019). Opening the black box of academic entrepreneurship: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics,120, 237–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. C. (2003). Diasporic membership in historical perspective: Comparative insights from the Mexican, Italian and Polish Cases. The International Migration Review,37, 724–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (1992). Managing the unknowable: Strategic boundaries between order and chaos in organizations. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, B. (2009). A case study of complex adaptive systems theory—Sustainable global governance: The singular challenge of the twenty-first century. In WISDOM RISC Research Paper 5. Slovenia: University of Ljubljana.

  • Stephan, P. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature,34, 1199–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taguchi, G. (1987). System of experimental design: Engineering methods to optimize quality and minimize costs. White Plains, NY: Kraus International Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, E., Liu, F., Sun, J., & Haider, Z. (2013). The relationship between scientists and science: Knowledge-based innovation output. Scientometrics,98, 1827–1835.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNI. (2003). UNI 11097: Quality management—Quality indicators and quality management synoptical tables—General guidelines. Milano: Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijnatten, F. M. (2004). Chaordic systems thinking. The Learning Organization,11, 430–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (1997). Scientometrics: State-of-the-art. Scientometrics,38, 205–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velema, T. A. (2012). The contingent nature of brain gain and brain circulation: Their foreign context and the impact of return scientists on the scientific community in their country of origin. Scientometrics,93, 893–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, S., Schmidt, A., & Walter, A. (2016). Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes. Research Policy,45, 533–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED. (1987). Towards sustainable development. In Our common future. Chapter 2. Retrieved July 3, 2019 from, http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.

  • Werbner, P. (2002). The place which is diaspora: Citizenship, religion and gender in the making of chaordic transnationalism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,28, 119–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermann, O., Ashby, J., & Pretty, J. (2005). Gender and social capital: The importance of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource management groups. World Development,33, 1783–1799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (1997). The postmodern paradigm. In C. Dills & A. Romoszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 297–309). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, D. R. (1987). Screening models and education. In G. Psacharopoulos (Ed.), Economics of education: Research and studies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,31, 121–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer,15, 225–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation analysis: A comparison Of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Paper presented at the 69th annual meeting of the American society for information science and technology (ASIST), USA.

  • Zhelyazkova, A., Damjanovski, I., Nechev, Z., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2019). European Union Conditionality in the Western Balkans: External Incentives and Europeanisation. In J. Džankić, S. Keil, & M. Kmezić (Eds.), The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans. New Perspectives on South-East Europe. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ilica 154, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Mladen Djuric, Marina Dobrota & Jovan Filipovic

Authors
  1. Mladen Djuric
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marina Dobrota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jovan Filipovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mladen Djuric.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Djuric, M., Dobrota, M. & Filipovic, J. Complexity-based quality indicators for human and social capital in science and research: the case of Serbian Homeland versus Diaspora. Scientometrics 124, 303–328 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03428-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03428-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation