Facilitymetrics for Big Ocean Science: Towards Improved Measurement of Scientific Impact

Cabled ocean observatories are examples of “Big Science” facilities requiring significant public investments for installation and ongoing maintenance. Large observatory networks in Canada and the United States, for example, have been established after extensive up-front planning and hundreds of millions of dollars in start-up costs. As such, they are analogous to particle accelerators and astronomical observatories, which may often be required to compete for public funding in an environment of ever-tightening national science budget allocations. Additionally, the globalization of Big Science compels these facilities to respond to increasing demands for demonstrable productivity, excellence and competitiveness. How should public expenditures on “Big Science” facilities be evaluated and justified in terms of benefits to the countries that invest in them? Published literature counts are one quantitative measure often highlighted in the annual reports of large science facilities. But, as recent research has demonstrated, publication counts can lead to distorted characterizations of scientific impact, inviting evaluators to calculate scientific outputs in terms of costs per publication—a ratio that can be simplistically misconstrued to conclude Big Science is wildly expensive. Other commonly promoted measurements of Big Science facilities include technical reliability (a.k.a. uptime), provision of training opportunities for Highly Qualified Personnel, generation of commercialization opportunities, and so forth. “Facilitymetrics” is a new empirical focus for scientometrical studies, which has been applied to the evaluation and comparison of synchrotron facilities. This paper extends that quantitative and qualitative examination to a broader inter-disciplinary comparison of Big Science facilities in the ocean science realm to established facilities in the fields of astronomy and particle physics.