Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate pentachlorophenol research

The objective of the study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of all pentachlorophenolrelated publications in the Science Citation Index (SCI). Analyzed parameters included document type, language of publication, page count, publication output, authorship, keywords plus, publication pattern, citation and country of publication. The US produced 29% of the total single country publications where the seven major industrial countries accounted for the majority of the total production (66%). An indicator citation per publication was successfully applied in this study to evaluate the impact of number of authors, countries, and journals. The mean value of citation per publication of collaborative papers was higher than that of single country publications. In addition analysis of keywords plus in different period was applied to indicate a research trend.     

Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate contingent valuation research

This is the first article using bibliometrics to study the field of contingent valuation research. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contingent valuation research performance based on all the related articles in SCI and SSCI databases from 1991 to 2005. An indicator named citation per publication (CPP) was presented in this study to assess the impact of article output per year, different countries, institutes, and authors from the worldwide. Publication per institute (PPI) in a country was used to be an indicator to compare institute’s research performance by country. Citation analysis was made to select the most frequently cited articles since publication to 2005 of each year. A citation model was applied to describe the relationship between the cumulative number of citations and article life. The results indicate that with the increase article output per year, the CPP decreased slightly since 1997. The USA produced 55% of all pertinent articles. Institutes from the UK had a higher PPI. The most prolific institutes and authors, and the most frequently cited articles per year were all listed. In addition, a citation model was successfully applied to evaluate performance of each year, and the most frequently cited articles of each year were also compared by the model.     

Evaluation of recent scientific research output by a bibliometric method

Describes a new method of evaluation of scientific output by laboratories engaged in diverse fields of research. This method helps to evaluate those outputs which are quite recent and not amenable to citation analysis. For the purpose of analysis, impact factor of journals in which papers are published are considered. A method for normalisation of impact factor of journals has been described and, normalised impact factors have also been used for the purpose of analysis. It is found that in such analysis normalised impact factor tends to show better results compared to simple impact factor. The analysis helps us to generate numerous performance indicators such as average impact factor and normalised impact factor for each laboratory and the research complex such as CSIR as a whole; average impact factor and normalised impact factor for each scientist of a laboratory and the research complex; spectral distribution of papers falling within various ranges of impact factors and normalised impact factors. By comparing the performances over several years the trend of research activity of each laboratory can also be obtained.Paper presented at the International Conference on Science Indicators for Developing Countries, Paris, 15–19 October, 1990.     

Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach

Scientometrics - Citation counts have long been considered as the primary bibliographic indicator for evaluating the quality of research—a practice premised on the assumption that citation...     

The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research group's scientific performance

In the first part of the paper the citations in 1986 and 1987 of 3938 papers published in 1985 by 324 research groups in the faculties of science and of medicine of eight universities in the Netherlands are analyzed. Because of the large statistical spread of (1) the number of short-term citations of papers cited equally frequently over a long period, and (2) the number of citations over a long period of papers by the same author, short-term citation scores appear to be an unreliable indicator of a research group's contribution to science. In the second part of the paper an alternative approach is presented, based on a subdivision of the 3938 papers in papers authored by professors with 0–2, 3–8, or 9 highly cited papers (HCPs, 25 citations) to their name. Very large citation score differences were found for the three categories. For example: for papers first-authored by a professor, the average number of citations per person in 1986 and 1987 for 1985 papers was for 161 professors with 9 HCPs a factor 14 larger than for 575 professors with only 0–2 HCPs; for papers co-authored by professors, this factor was 6.6. These findings justify the conclusion that the number of HCPs scored by the professors (and other senior scientists) during their entire career is a much more reliable predictor of the performance of a research group than the number of short-term citations of the articles published by the group within a short period. A research group's contribution to science is primarily determined by the individual scientifictalents of its members.     

EM-index: a new measure to evaluate the scientific impact of scientists

During the last decade, several scientometrics as well as bibliometrics indices were proposed to quantify the scientific impact of individual. The h-index gives a breakthrough in scientific evaluation, but this index suffers with big hit problem, i.e., once a paper is selected in h-core publication, further citation of h-core articles is not considered in scientific evaluation. To overcome this limitation of h-index, the e-index was proposed, but it does not consider the core citation count. It considers only the excess citation count. To overcome this limitation, the EM-index is proposed in this article. The EM-index is the extension of h-index and e-index, which uses the concept of multidimensional h-index. The EM-index uses all citation counts of h-core articles at multi-level to quantify the scientific impact of the individual. But this index does not consider all publication citations. To overcome this limitation of EM-index a multidimensional extension of the EM-index is also proposed called EM′-index. To validate the proposed indicators, an experimental analysis has been done on 82 scientist’s publication citation count, who are working in scientiometrics field. In such a way, we found a more balanced and fine-grained approach to evaluate the scientific impact of individual as well as to compare the scientific impact of two different researchers/scientists.

     

Correction to: EM-index: a new measure to evaluate the scientific impact of scientists

Scientometrics - In the original publication, Acknowledgements was published with incomplete information. The complete Acknowledgements is given in this correction.     

The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach

We propose a method for selecting the research guarantor when papers are co-authored. The method is simply based on identifying the corresponding author. The method is here applied to global scientific output based on the SCOPUS database in order to build a new output distribution by country. This new distribution is then compared with previous output distributions by country but which were based on whole or fractional counting, not only for the total output but also for the excellence output (papers belonging to the 10 % most cited papers). The comparison allows one to examine the effect of the different methodological approaches on the scientific performance indicators assigned to countries. In some cases, there was a very large variation in scientific performance between the total output (whole counting) and output as research guarantor. The research guarantor approach is especially interesting when used with the excellence output where the quantity of excellent papers is also a quality indicator. The impact of excellent papers naturally has less variability as they are all top-cited papers.     

Modeling multinational publication: Development of an on-line fractionation approach to measure national scientific output

This study of multinational publication (publications involving authors from more than one country) focuses on a viable method of fractionation, which can be used in on-line bibliometric research. Fractionation occurs when the credit for co-authored papers is added only partially to the total of publications of countries or authors. We attempted to find an empirical relation between the share of a country's papers in some field that is multinationally co-authored and the degree of fractionation which results. A linear regression analysis yielded a significant correlation of –0.95. The fractionation method is the first that can be applied to publication data collected on-line. A comparison is made with fractionation by first author (i.e., first address) counting. Application of the method to British scientific output for 1984–1989 suggests that British output was stable. The fractionation method can be applied to both natural and life sciences and to social and behavioral sciences. Findings suggest that similar processes of multinational publication are prevalent in both types of science. Implications of the model are discussed.     

Differences in scientific productivity of research units: Measurement and analysis of output inequality

Three aspects of inequalities in scientific productivity of research units-scientists within RUs, RUs in the full sample and its cross-section, and an aggregate approach, in which components referring to the first two types of inequality were distinguished—was used to analyse the causes underlying unequall productivity. Using inequality measure based on the theory of information (Theil measure) an inverse relationship between volume of productivity and its inequality was empirically found both within research units and among RUs of a given organizational system. Therefore identifying the soruces of variability of output inequalities may be helpful in drawing conclusions regarding to the absolute volumes of scientific productivity of RUs.     

The effect of collaborations on scientific research output: the case of nanoscience in Chinese regions

Scientometrics - The pattern and impact of scientific collaborations depends on a country’s or region’s development stage. Prior to promoting scientific collaborations, it is crucial to...     

Distribution of publications as an indicator for the evaluation of scientific programs

This article describes investigations into the publication behaviour of scientific authors from the GDR. The obtained data revealed that — analogous to the Lotka-distribution — not only a fifth of all authors produce half of the publications of a certain institute, but that these authors also have a quicker reaction time and receptivity to new international research problems. These findings may make it possible to substantiate proposals by guiding scientists in the direction of themes, respectively to help the science policy in the process of the elaboration of new research programs.     

Year based EM-index: a new approach to evaluate the scientific impact of scholars

Scientometrics - In the research community, generally the assessment of scholarly impact of an individual is based on citation counts of publications. Instead of this a different approach, year...     

Analysis of the Spanish scientific and technological output in the ICT sector

Summary This study presents a general view of the scientific and technological production in the ICT sector in Spain during the period 1990-2002 and its relative weight in the international production, as well as the identification of the main institutional actors and the performance patterns of the researchers in this scientific community through bibliometric techniques, with the aim of exploring the character of its outputs, both in terms of publications and patents. Indicators at macro-meso level are presented by: geographic regions, thematic areas at different aggregation levels, institutional sectors and research centres. Bibliometric indicators may help focus attention on the position and contribution of Spanish ICT science and technological capabilities.     

Correction to: Year based EM-index: a new approach to evaluate the scientific impact of scholars

Scientometrics - In the original publication, Acknowledgements was published with incomplete information. The complete Acknowledgements is given in the correction.     

Statistical reliability of citation frequency as an indicator of scientific impact

The article deals with the statistical problem of the difference between the mean citation frequencies of two sets of papers required to be significantly different. An analysis of citation data indicated that, as a first-order approximation, (1) The relative spread due to a short observation interval is independent of the long-term citation frequency and (2) the relative spread in long-term citation frequencies of different papers from the same author is independent of the mean citation score for the papers by that author. As a rule-of-thumb, these two sources of variance can be characterized by standard deviations of a ratio (factor) of 2 and 3, respectively. By applying these results to citation data published in the literature, it is shown that sometimes statistically unjustified conclusions have been drawn in the past.     

Some considerations on the use of the impact factor of scientific journals as a tool to evaluate research in psychology

Summary This paper identifies and presents some characteristics of the psychology journals included in each of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) categories in 2002. The study shows that most of the journals belong to the categories of Multidisciplinary Psychology (102) and Clinical Psychology (83). Their ranking is seen to vary depending on the category, and the same journal may occupy different positions in different JCR categories. Journals included in the categories of Biological Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Multidisciplinary Psychology had the highest impact factor (IF).     

Collective topical PageRank: a model to evaluate the topic-dependent academic impact of scientific papers

Scientometrics - With the explosive growth of academic writing, it is difficult for researchers to find significant papers in their area of interest. In this paper, we propose a pipeline model,...     

Multivariate statistical analysis of the bibliographic output from a research institution,in relation to the measures of scientific policy

The publications produced in a medical research institute in a 16 year interval were classified into five categories (scientific papers in the journals covered byCurrent Contents orScience Citation Index, scientific papers in other journals, books and monographs, technical papers, congress and symposia communications) and counted for each year separately. The number of researchers and yearly budgets were also recorded. The data were analysed by contingency table, correlation and factor-analytical methods. It was shown that, upon introducing quantitative minimal criteria for job promotions, the proportion of scientific papers increased. Principal component analysis indicated that the data can be approximately represented as linear combinations of three mutually independent factors. The approach used is recommended for evaluating the production of scientific information in research institutions and for assessing the effects of the measures of scientific policy.