Making Scientometric Sense out of NIRF Scores

Prathap, Gangan

doi:10.18520/cs/v112/i06/1240-1242

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the same way, there are institutes that despite being too young and newly established are producing more quality research than centuries-old established institutes. This gets corroborated in a study; while reviewing the NIRF data of the 20 leading Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), given their research excellence, it was found that newly established IITs like IIT Ropar and IIT Indore are quite promising in terms of their research output, while the well-established IITs, like IIT Mumbai and Kharagpur, have registered a decline in their research output (Prathap and Abdul, 2017). In a recent survey, Prathap observed that as per the Ministry of Human Resource and Development NIRF ranking list 2019, of the 100 top NIRF ranked institutes, 82% institutes are from Tamil Nadu, New Delhi and Kerala alone (Prathap, 2019).…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Returns on library investment: seeking causative relationship between the library investment and the institutional research output

Singh

Pandita

Baidwan

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to seek the causative relationship between the library budget and research output with the ranking of 20 leading medial institutes in India. More so, the study also attempts to find out whether the libraries associated with academic and research institutes in general and medical institutes in particular have turned redundant or irrelevant, or have become more relevant in the changing times by embracing technology in its every new form. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on the secondary data retrieved from the official website of the Ministry of Education, Government of India and research output against each institution under study has been retrieved from Scopus. The study is limited to Indian medical institutions that participated in the 2019 National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), conducted by the Ministry of Education, India each year. The findings of the study can be generalized to all the medical institutions of the country. Findings On average, INR 160.90m were spent by each medical institute on the procurement of library resources at an average of INR 0.104m on procurement of resources against each individual published research article. Of the total research articles published by medical institutes under study, 26.39% of research articles were published by researchers from AIIMS, New Delhi, alone. Research limitations/implications Financial aid or funding is very vital for the survival, sustenance and excellence of research institutions, and this funding becomes more important when the investigation is aimed toward the furtherance of medical advances. Any medical advancement is hell-bent to influence the overall welfare and betterment of society at large, whereby the benefit of any investment made in medical science is bound to be reaped by one and all alike. Originality/value In India, a good number of studies have been undertaken on the NIRF data to dive deeper to assess the role and importance of libraries in the overall ranking of institutions like universities, management institutes, engineering and technology institutes, but no major study has been so far conducted covering leading medical institutes in India. The study is the original and first of its kind undertaken in India.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Returns on library investment: seeking causative relationship between the library investment and the institutional research output

Singh

Pandita

Baidwan

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scholars' attitudes toward the evaluation process and its impact on their later careers are also subject to analysis (Rousseau & Rousseau, 2017;Jeran, Kącka & Piechowiak-Lamparska, 2017;Kącka, Michalak & Piechowiak-Lamparska, 2018). Researchers also quite keenly turn to the topic of (broadly understood) scientifi c performance indicators in attempts to defi ne their role in the process of the evaluation of scientifi c research in selected countries (Fukuzawa, 2017;Prathap, 2017). In our study, the key issue was the impact of the scholarship work of individual researchers and the factors that might be correlated with it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Effectiveness of Academia Employees in Poland: A Case Study

Kącka¹,

Piechowiak-Lamparska²,

Michalak³

2018

tner

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eff ectiveness in publishing is currently the most important criterion in the process of the evaluation of scientifi c and research units in Poland. In the national evaluations system for such units, this criterion has the largest relative impact on their fi nal assessment and rating, on the basis of which, in turn, fi nancial resources are allocated. Th e key question in this context was what factors are correlated with publication eff ectiveness of employees in the domain of science? Th e aim of the analysis was to determine correlations between selected factors such as an employee's academic title and position in a scientifi c unit's hierarchy or their teaching load and their scientifi c eff ectiveness as measured by publications. Th e study was conducted on the entire staff population of the Faculty of Political Sciences and International Studies at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. As a result, it was found that the selected factors only to a marginal degree were correlated with publication eff ectiveness in the group studied.

show abstract

“…Table 2 With respect to the output per crore of rupees of annual expenditure: College of Engineering, Pune was the lowest performer and Jamia Millia Islamia was the best performer, by a factor of 49.91. This range is not seen in the NIRF scores, where the academic aspect which accounts for only a small fraction of the total score along with those from all the other heads and sub-heads has been telescoped into a narrow band, a feature noticed last year as well 5 . Table 2 also shows the Pearson's correlations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Making Scientometric and Econometric Sense out of Nirf 2017 Data

Prathap¹

2017

Current Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We perform a comparative end-to-end research evaluation of leading engineering institutions in India separating out the bibliometric part of the chain from the econometric part. This combines size-dependent and size-independent terms based on quantity and quality (impact) in a meaningful way. Output or outcome at the bibliometric level is measured using a second-order composite indicator, and the productivity or efficiency terms follow accordingly using the input to output or outcome factors. Data are taken from the recent release of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2017 in the public domain. Thus, the ranking based on NIRF scores of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras as the best engineering institution in India is too simplistic a conclusion.Keywords: Bibliometrics, comparative research evaluation, institutional ranking, size dependence and independence.THE National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has just released its 2017 rankings of higher educational institutions across the country. A wealth of scientometric and institutional data are now available in the public domain. In this communication, we focus only on the aspect of research excellence as measured by publications, citations and impact from three different bibliometric databases for the top 25 engineering institutions ranked in 2017. An end-to-end comparative research evaluation of leading engineering institutions in India is performed by separating out the bibliometric part (inner core) of the chain from the econometric part (outer shell). This combines size-dependent and size-independent terms based on quantity and quality (impact) in a meaningful way. Output or outcome at the bibliometric level is measured using a second-order composite indicator, and the productivity or efficiency terms follow accordingly using the input to output or outcome factors.Savithri and Prathap 1 showed that the research performance of leading higher education institutions in India and China can be summarized from the input end to the outcome end using six primary and secondary bibliometric indicators representing the entire chain of activity: input-output-excellence-outcome-productivity. Principal component analysis indicated that the primary indicators are orthogonal and represent size-dependent quantity and size-independent quality/productivity dimensions respectively. Composite indicators which combine size-dependent and size-independent terms were also needed to measure output and outcome. Data from the 2014 release of the SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR) were used.Abramo and D'Angelo 2,3 have recently argued that the use of size-independent citation indicators from the bibliometric part (inner core) of the chain to rank institutions for performance must be combined with the productivity and efficiency measures from the econometric outer loop of assessment. This requires the bibliometric core of the chain (measuring output or outcome using bibliometric indicators) to be separated from the econometric part (the outcome or output to...

show abstract

Making Scientometric Sense out of NIRF Scores

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Returns on library investment: seeking causative relationship between the library investment and the institutional research output

Returns on library investment: seeking causative relationship between the library investment and the institutional research output

Publication Effectiveness of Academia Employees in Poland: A Case Study

Making Scientometric and Econometric Sense out of Nirf 2017 Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About