In the preceding lessons, we have outlined some of the concrete ways in which Scopus data have been used for large-scale evaluative studies (typically at the national or institutional levels) and for exploratory work leading to a plethora of papers on aspects as diverse as topic detection, researcher mobility, and data visualization techniques. But the potential of Scopus to uncover and understand the fundamental forces that drive human knowledge creation through the research endeavor may be limited only by our capability to ask the right questions. How do career paths form and change for individual researchers through space and time? Can we follow people as they develop from “apprentice” to “master” and understand the drift in their topical focus, collaborative patterns, geolocation, and research impact (by citation-based indicators or other means) through careers that may be either very short or very long? Can we identify the conditions that, near the beginning of a research career, predict a long and successful contribution to the knowledge front? And those conditions that foreshadow an early exit from the world of (academic) research? Going beyond Scopus, can we use standardized researcher identifiers, such as ORCID, connected to nonresearch online personas, such as LinkedIn, to pinpoint the exit of trained researchers from publication-centric roles (largely within or adjacent to academia) into careers in organizations in the commercial or charitable sectors? What is the influence of gender, nationality, and early-career mentoring on these outcomes, and how much remains unexplained? Is a career in research more likely the result of persistence or of good fortune—and what does this mean for the development of better and fairer evaluative structures in research? Finally, what are the implications of the answers to these questions for all the actors in research, from educators to public policy experts and from university career advisors to researchers themselves?
This single example shows that those who create and those who use Scopus suffer no lack of imagination to ask challenging questions, and Scopus itself offers a firm base on which to begin seeking answers. The remaining piece of the puzzle is a collective one: How can the bibliometric research community and the creators of Scopus best come together to address these challenges together? In June 2019, the ICSR (International Center for the Study of Research, 2019) was launched, with a wide-ranging brief and the support of an advisory board, including experts in research policy, research evaluation, and bibliometrics, to be a place where a dialogue can happen and research of great interest and importance can be pursued—together. Elsevier, Scopus and the ICSR do not see themselves as apart from the world of research but as part of it, and this spirit will inform our work for many years to come.