Bibliometric analysis

Transcription

1 Bestyrelsesmøde nr. 74, den 6. okt Pkt. 12. Bilag 2 Bibliometric analysis University of Copenhagen Programme of Excellence (Final report. August 2014) Adrian Price ap@science.ku.dk SCIENCE Research Documentation Faculty Library of Natural and Health Sciences Frederiksberg Campus Part of Copenhagen University Library Service CULIS 1

2 Bibliometric analysis University of Copenhagen Programme of Excellence Contents: Introduction and methodology 3 Data collection.. 3 The analyses 3 The analysis: Indicators of impact. 4 The analysis: Collaboration. 9 The analysis: Indicators of output. 14 Conclusions 15 Appendix 1: List of all programmes. 16 2

3 Bibliometric analysis University of Copenhagen Programme of Excellence Introduction and methodology This bibliometric analysis covers the publications which are an outcome of the individual programmes which made up the Programme of Excellence at the University of Copenhagen. There were twenty programmes in all, covering all main research areas. The searches for the publications were carried out by SCIENCE Research Documentation, Faculty Library of Natural and Health Sciences, which is part of Copenhagen University Library Service, CULIS. Data collection Each programme was provided with a list of publications which was drawn from the repository of the University of Copenhagen, CURIS. These publication lists were for the publications of the principal investigators of the programmes as well as others who were involved, and as reported by the programmes themselves. These initial lists were intended as a starting point for each programme, the premise being, that the publications of the University of Copenhagen research staff should be registered in CURIS. Each programme was asked to indicate on the lists which publications emanated directly from the programme, and each programme was free to supplement the list with additional publications, where necessary. How the individual programmes submitted publications varied. Some kept to the initial list sent, some supplemented these lists with own lists while others submitted publications entirely with their own lists. All returned lists were used as received as the basis for the bibliometric analyses. Searches were conducted in the Web of Science (WoS) database covering the years and limited to publication types journal articles, letters and reviews. The number of publications which was indicated as belonging to the individual programmes varied from programme to programme. The total number of publications for each programme can be seen in the analysis section. From the searches in WoS, the ID s of all the publications found were recorded and used in the final searches in WoS. The WoS database covers mainly the hard or natural sciences, and this of course has had an influence on how the searches and the subsequent analyses were adequately able to cover the programmes which are mainly within the humanities. An attempt though was made to do searches and analyses in WoS for all the programmes, but it is important to bare this limiting factor in mind when looking at the results of the analyses. The analyses The different indicators which can be obtained from a bibliometric analysis are often classified into two types: impact indicators and output indicators. Impact indicators are indicators calculated through the use of normalized data. When data is normalized, account is taken for publications from different research areas, where citation practices can vary a great deal from research area to research area, and for publications of different ages, where older articles will attract more citations that younger articles. Output indicators cover, for example, the number of publications published, the number of citations received, the number of non cited publications etc. With output indicators it is not possible, or extremely difficult and risky, to draw any real conclusions regarding the performance of the individual programmes, 3

4 either in comparison with other programmes or in comparison with their respective research areas on a global scale. Output indicators do not provide a baseline as such, which can be used as a basis for comparison. It was important therefore that the bibliometric analysis of the programmes emanating from the University of Copenhagen Programme of Excellence should primarily include indicators of impact, where it would be possible to infer conclusions as to the impact of the results of the programmes. Because of limitations as to the amount of data that can be analysed in the web version of WoS available to the University of Copenhagen, it was decided to engage the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science and Government, Aarhus University, to do the calculations using WoS data available at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University. The SCIENCE Research Documentation unit 1 did the searches for the publications from the lists as supplied by the individual programmes and a list of all publication ID s in the WoS database was delivered to the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy to do the analyses using the version of the WoS database available at CWTS, Leiden University. The web version of the WoS database where the searches were made is not identical with the database used by CWTS, but the difference, which resulted in 39 publications not being included in the final analysis, is not seen as having any decisive influence on the indicators. The impact indicators as calculated by the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy using the CWTS database, are included in the main bibliometric analysis section below. This is followed by a analysis of how various forms of collaboration have an influence on the impact indicators. Finally there is a citation analysis comprised mainly of output indicators. The analysis: Indicators of impact It was decided to calculate three indicators of impact in the final analysis for each programme, the three which are most commonly used in analyses of this kind. Here follows a short definition of each indicator, and the other figures included in the main table below, which summarizes the results for each programme. The period covered by the analysis was , using a so called variable citation window. This means that all citations received by all publications in this fixed time period have been counted: the citation window will thus vary for younger articles and for older articles. Full counting was also used, i.e. all authors/affiliations of a publication are weighted equally. Number of publications This is the total number of publications for each programme used in the analysis. Only articles, letters and reviews are included. MNCS: Mean Normalized Citation Score This indicator seeks to normalize the differences in citation patterns between publications from different research fields, from different publication years and of different publication types. The research fields to which the publications belong are determined by the WoS subject categories to 1 Research Documentation is a unit of the Faculty Library of Natural and Health Sciences, and a part of CULIS, the Copenhagen University Library Service. 4

5 which the journals they are published in belong. The normalized citation score of a publication is the ratio of the citations received by the publication and the expected number of citations received by all publications in the WoS subject category, in the same publication year and of the same document type. The MNCS indicator uses a baseline of 1,00 (the world or the database ) against which a comparison can be made. A resulting MNCS indicator of, say, 1,00 for a whole programme indicates that on average, the publications of a programme have a citation impact equal to other publications in the field, while a MNCS indicator of, say, 2,00 indicates that on average, the publications of a programme have a citation impact twice that of other publications in the field (see Figure 1). PPtop10%: Proportion of top 10% publications This indicator shows the proportion of a programme s publications which belong to the top 10% of all WoS publications in the same field, the same publication year, and of the same publication type, determined by the number of citations received. If, for example, the PPtop10% indicator of a programme is given as 0,2 this means that 20% of the programme s publications lie in the zone of the top cited 10% of WoS publications in the same research field, in the same year and of the same publication type. MNJS: Mean Normalized Journal Score The MNJS indicator is very similar to the MNCS, but instead of using the citations in different research fields, the MNJS uses the average number of citations of all publications published in the individual journals. WoS coverage Interpretation of the MNJS is also similar to the MNCS: a MNJS indicator of, say, 2,00 indicates that on average the publications of the programme have been published in journals that have been cited twice as much as would be expected in the field. This is the percentage of publications found in WoS and which are used in the analysis, seen in relation to the total number of publications used as a starting point for the analysis. Inclusion of programmes in the analysis At the outset it was known that certain programmes would fall out of the main coverage of the WoS database. This factor, coupled with the fact that the total number of publications which could be included in the analysis, would consequently be small, it was decided to exclude four of the programmes from the final analysis. Indicators and data for these 4 programmes (programmes 1, 2, 3 and 7 shown in Table 2) were calculated, but are not included in the overall indicators in Table 1, Table 3 or Figure 1. 5

6 Table 1: Impact indicators for 16 programmes combined 2 No. of Publ. MNCS PPtop10% MNJS All projects combined ,77 0,218 1,68 Table 2: Indicators of impact for all individual programmes Sorted by falling number of publications Programme (sorted by number of publications) No. of Publ. MNCS PPtop10% MNJS Coverage Proj 17: Statistical methods for complex and high dimensional models 552 1,72 0,204 1,54 0,83 Proj 18: Center for macroecology and evolution 275 2,41 0,334 2,25 0,79 Proj 13: Stardust to planets 179 1,92 0,173 1,61 0,85 Proj 19: Single molecule nanoscience 148 2,09 0,314 2,15 0,94 Proj 10: Dynamic Genetics 121 1,30 0,163 1,81 0,94 Proj 11: Copenhagen high throughput sequencing facility 121 2,66 0,359 2,54 0,87 Proj 12: Symmetry and deformation 105 1,35 0,184 1,48 0,64 Proj 20: Biomolecular scaffolding of neurotransmitter receptors and transporters 75 1,45 0,214 1,44 0,97 Proj 9: Copenhagen Center for Glycomics 71 1,16 0,103 1,24 0,96 Proj 8: Membrane Topology and Quaternary structure of key parasite 58 1,09 0,069 1,17 0,96 Proj 15: Ionotropic glutamate receptors as targets for structure based drug research 54 0,72 0,064 1,37 0,96 Proj 6: Center for advanced security theory 38 2,59 0,427 1,73 0,33 Proj 4: Integrated visual attention research 30 1,53 0,183 1,14 0,87 Proj 5: Economic policy the modern welfare state 27 1,54 0,148 1,47 0,59 Proj 16: Epigenetics and cancer 16 4,17 0,547 2,92 0,98 Proj 7: Naturalism and Christian Semantics 10 2,18 0,221 1,54 0,18 Proj 1: Canon and identity formation 3 0,00 0,000 1,21 0,09 Proj 14: Evolutionary Agroecology 2 1,17 0,000 2,88 0,81 Proj 2: Development of speed in reading 2 4,10 0,500 2,18 0,65 Proj 3: The roots of europe 2 0,00 0,030 0,40 0,08 Notes: Indicators in red are for programmes with less than 50 publications. Indicators become susceptible to outlier publications, i.e. highly cited publications, when the total number of publications is below 50. Data for programmes 1, 2, 3 and 7 are shown above but not included in the combined analyses. Interpretation of the results As already explained the MNCS and MNJS indicators are interpreted against the baseline of 1, which can be described as the world or as the database. Looking at all the programmes combined in Table 1, the MNCS is 1,77, which shows that the programmes as a whole have a cited impact 1,7 times higher than other publications, comparable by field, period and type. The programmes combined have 21,8% of their publications in the top 10% of all publications comparable by field, period and type. 2 Programmes 1, 2, 3 and 7 are not included. 6

7 There are similar bibliometric analyses published recently 3, which cover all publications emanating from the Danish National Research Foundation s funded Centres of Excellence, and Denmark as a whole, and the CWTS Leiden ranking of 750 universities 4, has also been published, with indicators for the major universities worldwide. To put the impact indicators of the programmes in perspective, a small selection of institutions can be tabulated: Table 3: The tree main indicators for the University of Copenhagen Programme of Excellence, DNRF funded Centres of Excellance and Denmark as a whole and including universities MNCS PPtop10% Univ. Of Copenhagen Programme of Excellence 1,77 0,218 DNRF Centres of Excellence 1,87 0,203 Denmark 1,39 0,149 University of Copenhagen 1,19 0,127 Aarhus University 1,16 0,127 Technical University of Denmark 1,32 0,141 University of Southern Denmark 1,05 0,110 University of Aalborg 1,01 0,105 Note: These analyses were carried out independently of one another, so care should therefore be taken in interpreting the results. As in all bibliometric analyses, when interpreting the results of both impact indicators and output indicators, care must be taken in never concentrating entirely on one indicator or in comparing results from different analyses with different conditions, which might lead to an over interpretation of the results. In Table 3, as a general picture of how research publications emanating from the sources stand as regards impact, it can be seen that publications from the University of Copenhagen Programme of Excellence, can be compared favourably with the DNRF Centres of Excellence, are markably higher than Denmark as a whole and other Danish universities, with regard to the key indicators of impact. 3 Bibliometric analyses of publications from Centres of Excellence funded by the Danish National Research Foundation / Schneider, J, Costas, Rodrigo [u.å.] 4 7

8 Bibliometric analysis Final Report. August Figure 1. All programmes showing MNCS and number of publications The analysis: Collaboration An impact analysis was carried out for the programmes included measuring, for all the programmes as a whole and separately for each programme, publications having no collaboration, national collaboration and international collaboration. An analysis was also carried out for publications with industry collaboration, but this analysis has been kept separate,, as the basiss for the analysis is still at an early stage of development. Figure 2 shows the data for three indicators, MNCS, PPtop10% and MNJSS for all the programmess together and Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the data for the three indicators for each individual programme: A. No national or international collaboration B. National collaboration only C. International collaboration only and D. Industry collaboration. Table 4: Impact indicators for collaboration, all programmes 5 Collaboration: All programmes combined A.No national or international collaboration B.National collaboration only C.International collaboration only No. of Publ. P MNCS 1,,65 1,,19 1,,99 PPtop10% 0,200 0,138 0,249 MNJS 1,59 1,34 1,83 D.Industry collaboration 107 1,,98 0,232 2,04 5 Programmes 1, 2, 3 and 7 are not included in the combined analysis 8

9 Collaboration trends When comparing results with the analyses of collaboration carried out for the Danish National Research Foundation Centres of Excellance (DNRF) 6, publications with collaboration in the tree categories mentioned above, show similar trends in relative terms. Looking at the PPtop10% indicator, publications in Group A, no National or International collaboration, 20% of the Programmes of Excellence are in the top 10%, while for the DNRF Centres as a whole 19,6% are in the top 10% of the same research field. Group B, National collaboration only, 13,8% of the Programmes of Excellence are in the top 10%, while for the DNRF Centres as a whole 16,3% are in the top 10% of the same research field. Group C, International collaboration only, 24,9% of the Programmes of Excellence are in the top 10%, while for the DNRF Centres as a whole 22,0% are in the top 10% of the same research field. As one might expect, publications in Group C, International collaboration, have the highest impact in both analyses, but publications in Group B with only national collaboration, and which one would expect to result in a lower influence, has less of an influence on the DNRF publication impact than for the University s programmes. Here follows the collaboration analyses for the individual programmes (all programmes) for the four collaboration groups and the three indicators, followed by the data in table form. 6 Bibliometric analyses of publications from Centres of Excellence funded by the Danish National Research Foundation / Schneider, J, Costas, Rodrigo [u.å], p

10 Bibliometric analysis Final Report. August Figure 2 and 3: MNCS and PPtop10% indicators for collaboration, each programme 10

11 Bibliometric analysis Final Report. August Figure 4: MNJS indicator for collaboration, each programme 11

12 Table 5 8: Data for indicators of collaboration (A D) A.Programme publications: no national or international No. of collaboration Publ. MNCS PPtop10% MNJS Proj 10: Dynamic Genetics 37 1,39 0,175 2,22 Proj 11: Copenhagen high throughput sequencing facility 19 1,68 0,258 1,26 Proj 12: Symmetry and deformation 36 0,90 0,131 1,07 Proj 13: Stardust to planets 17 1,59 0,228 1,50 Proj 14: Evolutionary Agroecology 1 1,40 0,000 1,12 Proj 15: Ionotropic glutamate receptors as targets for structure based drug research 19 0,62 0,026 1,29 Proj 16: Epigenetics and cancer 6 5,52 0,667 2,71 Proj 17: Statistical methods for complex and high dimensional models 117 1,74 0,176 1,56 Proj 18: Center for macroecology and evolution 31 1,15 0,142 1,33 Proj 19: Single molecule nanoscience 44 2,28 0,344 2,12 Proj 20: Biomolecular scaffolding of neurotransmitter receptors and transporters 16 2,02 0,277 1,58 Proj 4: Integrated visual attention research 12 1,46 0,083 1,13 Proj 5: Economic policy the modern welfare state 14 0,69 0,000 0,92 Proj 6: Center for advanced security theory 26 2,81 0,470 1,86 Proj 8: Membrane Topology and Quaternary structure of key parasite 3 0,99 0,000 1,03 Proj 9: Copenhagen Center for Glycomics 13 1,18 0,106 1,69 B.Programme publications: national collaboration only No. of Publ. MNCS PPtop10% MNJS Proj 10: Dynamic Genetics 11 0,50 0,000 1,28 Proj 11: Copenhagen high throughput sequencing facility 11 2,25 0,202 1,26 Proj 12: Symmetry and deformation 8 0,71 0,125 2,02 Proj 13: Stardust to planets 13 0,86 0,077 1,29 Proj 15: Ionotropic glutamate receptors as targets for structure based drug research 4 0,38 0,000 1,11 Proj 16: Epigenetics and cancer 5 1,45 0,200 1,33 Proj 17: Statistical methods for complex and high dimensional models 208 1,24 0,154 1,34 Proj 18: Center for macroecology and evolution 15 1,88 0,215 1,04 Proj 19: Single molecule nanoscience 18 1,03 0,106 1,63 Proj 20: Biomolecular scaffolding of neurotransmitter receptors and transporters 10 0,87 0,100 0,93 Proj 4: Integrated visual attention research 3 0,56 0,000 1,11 Proj 5: Economic policy the modern welfare state 2 2,24 0,500 2,79 Proj 8: Membrane Topology and Quaternary structure of key parasite 11 1,23 0,121 1,30 Proj 9: Copenhagen Center for Glycomics 10 1,26 0,100 1,07 12

13 C.Programme publications: international collaboration No. of Publ. MNCS PPtop10% MNJS Proj 10: Dynamic Genetics 73 1,38 0,181 1,68 Proj 11: Copenhagen high throughput sequencing facility 91 2,91 0,400 2,96 Proj 12: Symmetry and deformation 61 1,70 0,223 1,64 Proj 13: Stardust to planets 149 2,04 0,175 1,65 Proj 14: Evolutionary Agroecology 1 0,93 0,000 4,64 Proj 15: Ionotropic glutamate receptors as targets for structure based drug research 31 0,83 0,095 1,46 Proj 16: Epigenetics and cancer 5 5,27 0,750 4,77 Proj 17: Statistical methods for complex and high dimensional models 227 2,15 0,265 1,73 Proj 18: Center for macroecology and evolution 229 2,61 0,368 2,45 Proj 19: Single molecule nanoscience 86 2,21 0,342 2,28 Proj 20: Biomolecular scaffolding of neurotransmitter receptors and transporters 49 1,38 0,216 1,49 Proj 4: Integrated visual attention research 15 1,78 0,300 1,16 Proj 5: Economic policy the modern welfare state 11 2,50 0,273 1,93 Proj 6: Center for advanced security theory 12 2,11 0,333 1,42 Proj 8: Membrane Topology and Quaternary structure of key parasite 44 1,06 0,060 1,15 Proj 9: Copenhagen Center for Glycomics 48 1,13 0,103 1,16 D.Programme publications: industry collaboration No. of Publ. MNCS PPtop10% MNJS Proj 10: Dynamic Genetics 5 1,25 0,200 1,36 Proj 11: Copenhagen high throughput sequencing facility 20 2,83 0,451 3,72 Proj 15: Ionotropic glutamate receptors as targets for structure based drug research 10 0,62 0,094 1,62 Proj 16: Epigenetics and cancer 4 0,93 0,000 1,15 Proj 17: Statistical methods for complex and high dimensional models 26 2,84 0,308 2,46 Proj 18: Center for macroecology and evolution 22 3,23 0,546 3,46 Proj 19: Single molecule nanoscience 15 1,63 0,169 2,25 Proj 20: Biomolecular scaffolding of neurotransmitter receptors and transporters 14 1,12 0,067 1,24 Proj 8: Membrane Topology and Quaternary structure of key parasite 7 1,96 0,184 0,72 Proj 9: Copenhagen Center for Glycomics 6 0,69 0,000 1,12 13

14 The analysis: Indicators of output Four indicators 7 of output have been chosen to be included in this analysis. Data for the indicators of output have been retrieved from the web version of WoS, which has also resulted in a slightly different total number of publications for a few programmes. No. of publications Times cited The total number of publications , of the types articles, letters and reviews. This is not the total number of publications submitted as belonging to the programme, but the number of publications in the period and of the above types. The total number of citations received by all the publications in the first column. Publications not cited % not cited The number of publications in the first column which have not been cited. The percentage of publications in the first column which have not been cited. Average number of citations per publication (MCS: Mean Citation Score) The average number of times publications in the first column have been cited. The MCS indicator is considered an indicator of impact and can be used to compare the performance of groups. 7 The MCS indicator, Mean Citation Score, is often regarded as an indicator of impact, but is included in this section as it has been calculated with data from the web version of WoS, and not the Leiden version of WoS which was used for the indicators of impact. 14

15 Table 9: Indicators of output for all individual programmes The indicators in Table 9 have all been calculated in the web version of WoS. Programmes (sorted by number of publications) No. of Publ. Times cited Publ. not cited % not cited Av. cites pr. publ. MCS Proj 17: Statistical methods for complex and high dimensional models ,52% Proj 18: Center for macroecology and evolution ,21% Proj 13: Stardust to planets ,68% Proj 19: Single molecule nanoscience ,70% Proj 10: Dynamic Genetics ,88% Proj 11: Copenhagen high throughput sequencing facility ,83% Proj 12: Symmetry and deformation ,10% 3.74 Proj 20: Biomolecular scaffolding of neurotransmitter receptors and transporters ,33% Proj 9: Copenhagen Center for Glycomics ,41% Proj 8: Membrane Topology and Quaternary structure of key parasite ,00% Proj 15: Ionotropic glutamate receptors as targets for structure based drug research ,70% 9.74 Proj 6: Center for advanced security theory ,33% 5.20 Proj 4: Integrated visual attention research ,13% Proj 5: Economic policy the modern welfare state ,41% 5.48 Proj 16: Epigenetics and cancer ,25% Proj 7: Naturalism and Christian Semantics ,55% 0.64 Proj 1: Canon and identity formation ,00% 0.60 Proj 14: Evolutionary Agroecology ,00% Proj 2: Development of speed in reading ,00% 4.00 Proj 3: The roots of europe ,00% 0.00 Note: The number of publications for some programmes differ slightly compared to the indicators in Table 2 due to differences in the databases used. Conclusions As can be seen by the calculated indicators of impact, the programmes comprising the University of Copenhagen Programme of Excellence, compare very favourably as a whole in regard to indicators of other institutions and programmes, where these indicators have been calculated. When interpreting the results of bibliometric analyses it is always adviseable to look at several indicators for each programme, both indicators of impact and output. Some of the University of Copenhagen programmes fall outside the coverage of the Web of Science database. This has resulted in low publication numbers for these programmes. 15

16 Appendix 1: List of all programmes No Field PI Project Amount granted 1 HUM Ass. professor Kim Ryholt 2 HUM Professor Carsten Elbro 3 HUM Professor MSO Birgit Anette Rasmussen Olsen (Ass. professor Jens Elmegård Rasmussen) 4 SAMF Professor Claus Bundesen 5 SAMF Professor Claus Thustrup Kreiner (Professor Christian Schultz) 6 SAMF Professor Ole Wæver 7 TEO Professor Troels Engberg Pedersen 8 SUND Professor Lars Hviid 9 SUND Professor Henrik Clausen Canon And Identity Formation In The Earliest Literate Societies Development of speed in reading The Roots of Europe Language, Culture and Migrations Integrated Visual Attention Research Economic Policy in the Modern Welfare State CAST: Centre for Advanced Security Theory Naturalism and Christian Semantics Membrane topology and quarternary structure of key parasite proteins involved in Plasmodium falciparum malaria pathogenesis and immunity Copenhagen Center for Glycomics Faculty Department HUM Department of Cross Cultural and Religious Studies HUM Department of Scandinavian Studies and Linguistics HUM Department of Scandinavian Studies and Linguistics SAMF Department of Psychology SAMF Department of Economics SAMF Department of Political Science TEO SUND Department of International Health, Immunology, and Microbiology SUND Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 16

17 10 NAT Ass. professor Lene B. Oddershede 11 NAT Professor Eske Willerslev 12 NAT Professor Jesper Grodahl 13 NAT Professor Martin Bizzarro 14 LIFE Professor Jacob Weiner 15 FARMA Professor Jette Sandholm Kastrup 16 BRIC Director, professor Kristian Helin 17 TVÆR/NAT Professor Michael Sørensen 18 TVÆR/NAT Professor Carsten Rahbek Dynamic Genetics Physics of Macromolecular Syntheses Copenhagen High Throughput Sequencing Facility Symmetry and Deformation Stardust to planets Unraveling the origins of the Solar System. Evolutionary Agroecology: Developing high density communal crop plants for weed suppression and increased sustanability Ionotropic glutamate receptors as targets for structure based drug research: A multidisciplinary programme in structural biology, chemical biology, medicinal chemistry, molecular pharmacology and ex vivo/in vivo pharmacology Epigenetics and cancer Statistical Methods for Complex and High Dimensional Models Center for Macroecology and Evolution: How to explain distribution and life on Earth SCIENCE Niels Bohr Institute SCIENCE Natural History Museum of Denmark SCIENCE Department of Mathematical Sciences SCIENCE Natural History Museum of Denmark SCIENCE Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences SUND Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology BRIC Biotech Research & Innovation Centre SCIENCE Department of Mathematical Sciences SCIENCE Natural History Museum of Denmark 17

18 19 TVÆR/NAT Professor Per Hedegård (Professor Thomas Bjørnholm) 20 TVÆR/SUND Professor Ulrik Gether Single Molecule Nanoscience Biomolecular scaffolding of neutrontransmitter receptors and transporters (BioScaRT) SCIENCE Niels Bohr Institute SUND Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology 18