Comparing scientific performance among equals

Sorzano, C.O.S.; Vargas, Javier; Caffarena, Gabriel; Iriarte, Ana

doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1368-6

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a long time, determining how to measure the scientific influence of scientific publications has been one of the focus of scietometrics (Sidiropoulos and Manolopoulos 2006;Zeng et al 2017). So far, many measures have been proposed, but these methods have some drawbacks (Maslov and Redner 2008;Frey and Rost 2010;Sorzano et al 2014). When we measure the impact of scientific publications or scientists, the number of citations is a simple but widely used metric (Garfield 1955;Amsterdamska and Leydesdorff 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking scientific publications considering the aging characteristics of citations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ranking the significance of scientific publications has been a challenging topic for a long time. So far, many ranking methods have been proposed, one of which is the well-known PageRank algorithm. In this paper, we introduce aging characteristics to the PageRank algorithm via considering only the first 10 year citations when aggregating resource from different nodes. The validation of our new method is performed on the data of American Physical Society journals. The results indicate that taking into account aging characteristics improves the performance of the PageRank algorithm in terms of ranking accuracy for both papers and authors. Though our method is only applied to citation networks in this paper, it can be naturally used in many other real systems and similar improvements are expected.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking scientific publications considering the aging characteristics of citations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A regression of h-index against academic age and sex has also been published [ 15 ], but for a sample limited to members of editorial boards of seven evolution and ecology journals. Likewise, sub-disciplinary effects have been noted in other fields [ 22 , 36 , 37 ], but attempts to account for variation due to sub-disciplinary focus thus far have relied on reference groups such as Nobel laureates [ 22 ] or named professors [ 20 ]. We are unaware of attempts to incorporate a faculty member’s research appointment, perhaps because this information is not provided on bibliometric search engines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sex differences in bibliometric scores also are common within a discipline; in several disciplines males tend to generate higher performance scores than females [ 10 , 15 , 21 ]. Even within a discipline, sub-disciplines can differ dramatically in publication and citation practices [ 22 ]. Despite the importance of these covariates on bibliometric scores, most benchmarking studies have failed to incorporate their effects or focused on a single covariate, typically professional age [ 9 ], but see [ 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Benchmarks for Scholarly Metrics Associated with Fisheries and Wildlife Faculty

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research productivity and impact are often considered in professional evaluations of academics, and performance metrics based on publications and citations increasingly are used in such evaluations. To promote evidence-based and informed use of these metrics, we collected publication and citation data for 437 tenure-track faculty members at 33 research-extensive universities in the United States belonging to the National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs. For each faculty member, we computed 8 commonly used performance metrics based on numbers of publications and citations, and recorded covariates including academic age (time since Ph.D.), sex, percentage of appointment devoted to research, and the sub-disciplinary research focus. Standardized deviance residuals from regression models were used to compare faculty after accounting for variation in performance due to these covariates. We also aggregated residuals to enable comparison across universities. Finally, we tested for temporal trends in citation practices to assess whether the “law of constant ratios”, used to enable comparison of performance metrics between disciplines that differ in citation and publication practices, applied to fisheries and wildlife sub-disciplines when mapped to Web of Science Journal Citation Report categories. Our regression models reduced deviance by ¼ to ½. Standardized residuals for each faculty member, when combined across metrics as a simple average or weighted via factor analysis, produced similar results in terms of performance based on percentile rankings. Significant variation was observed in scholarly performance across universities, after accounting for the influence of covariates. In contrast to findings for other disciplines, normalized citation ratios for fisheries and wildlife sub-disciplines increased across years. Increases were comparable for all sub-disciplines except ecology. We discuss the advantages and limitations of our methods, illustrate their use when applied to new data, and suggest future improvements. Our benchmarking approach may provide a useful tool to augment detailed, qualitative assessment of performance.

show abstract

“…The FSS score of professors belonging to different fields (SDSs, in the Italian university classification scheme) cannot be compared directly. In fact: (i) scientists’ intensity of publication remarkably varies across fields (Lillquist & Green, 2010 ; Piro et al, 2013 ; Sandström & Sandström, 2009 ; Sorzano et al, 2014 ), and this particularly true in Italy (D’Angelo & Abramo, 2015 ); (ii) the intensity of collaboration, i.e. the average number of co-authors per publication, also varies across fields (Abramo et al, 2013 ; Glanzel & Schubert, 2004 ; Yoshikane & Kageura, 2004 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A bibliometric methodology to unveil territorial inequities in the scientific wealth to combat COVID-19

Abramo

D’Angelo

2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we develop a methodology to assess the scientific wealth of territories at field level. Our methodology uses a bibliometric approach based on the observation of academic research performance and overall scientific production in each territory. We apply it to assess disparities in the Italian territories in the medical specialties at the front line of the COVID-19 emergency. Italy has been the first among western countries to be severely affected by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study reveals remarkable inequities across territories, with scientific weaknesses concentrated in the south. Policies for rebalancing the north–south divide should also consider, in addition to tangible assets, the gap in production and availability of quality medical knowledge.

show abstract

Comparing scientific performance among equals

Cited by 12 publications

References 18 publications

Ranking scientific publications considering the aging characteristics of citations

Ranking scientific publications considering the aging characteristics of citations

Performance Benchmarks for Scholarly Metrics Associated with Fisheries and Wildlife Faculty

A bibliometric methodology to unveil territorial inequities in the scientific wealth to combat COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About