Evaluation of the quality of scientific performance of the selected countries of Southeast Europe

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Dragan Babić ; Đuro Kutlača ; Lazar Živković ; Dijana Štrbac…
• 关键词：Scientific productivity ; Scientific performance quality ; Scientific fields ; h ; Index ; Southeast Europe countries
• 刊名：Scientometrics
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：January 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：106
• 期：1
• 页码：405-434
• 全文大小：1,120 KB
• 参考文献：Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Cicero, T. (2012). What is appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93, 1005–1017.CrossRef
  Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2013). The sustainability of h and g indexes for measuring the research performance of institutions. Scientometrics, 97, 555–570.CrossRef
  Bletsas, A., & Sahalos, J. N. (2009). Hirsch Index Rankings Require Scaling and Higher Moment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2577–2586.CrossRef
  Bornmann, L. (2013). A better alternative to the h index. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 100.CrossRef
  Bornmann, L., Anegón, F. M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The new excellence indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 333–335.CrossRef
  Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). What do we know about the h Index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385.CrossRef
  Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Reports, 10, 2–6.CrossRef
  Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h Index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h Index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.CrossRef
  Daraio, C., & Moed, H. F. (2011). Is Italian science declining? Research Policy, 40, 1380–1392.CrossRef
  Ding, Z.-Q., Ge, J.-P., Wu, X.-M., & Zheng, X.-N. (2013). Bibliometrics evaluation of research performance in pharmacology/pharmacy: China relative to ten representative countries. Scientometrics, 96, 829–844.CrossRef
  Egghe, L. (2005). Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. Elsevier: Academic Press.
  Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the h index. Science Focus, 1, 10–11.
  Heaps, H. S. (1978). Information retrieval: Computational and theoretical aspects (pp. 206–208). London: Academic Press.MATH
  Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.CrossRef
  Ho, Y.-S. (2013). Top cited research works in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Scientometrics, 94, 1297–1312.CrossRef
  Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharroman, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73, 303–320.CrossRef
  Iñigo, J., Palma, J.-A., Iriarte, J., & Urrestarazu, E. (2013). Evolution of the publications in clinical neurology: Scientific impact of different countries during 2000–2009 period. Scientometrics, 95, 941–952.CrossRef
  Jacsó, P. (2009). The h-index for countries in Web of Science and Scopus. Online Information Review, 33, 831–837.CrossRef
  Kalemani, B. S., Sagar, A., Surwase, G., & Bhanumurthy, K. (2013). Publication trends in material science: A global perspective. Scientometrics, 94, 1275–1295.CrossRef
  Kivinen, O., Hedman, J., & Kaipainen, P. (2013). Productivity analysis of research in natural sciences, technology and clinical medicine: An input–output model applied in comparison of top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian countries. Scientometrics, 94, 683–699.CrossRef
  Kutlača, D., Babić, D., Živković, L., & Štrbac, D. (2015). Analysis of quantitative and qualitative indicators of SEE countries scientific output. Scientometrics, 102, 247–265.CrossRef
  Lazaridis, T. (2010). Ranking university departments using the mean h index. Scientometrics, 82, 211–216.CrossRef
  Li, E. Y., Liaoa, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42, 1515–1530.CrossRef
  Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–324.
  Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41, 1219–1239.CrossRef
  Martin, B. R., Nightingale, P., & Alfredo Yegros-Yegros, A. (2012). Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41, 1182–1204.CrossRef
  Molinari, J. F., & Molinari, A. (2008). A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics, 75, 163–174.CrossRef
  OECD—Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (2007). Revised field of science and technology (FoS) classification in the Frascati manual. OECD, pp. 1–12.
  Perme, M. P., Stare, J., Žaucer, R., & Žaucer, M. (2012). Comparison of the citation distribution and h index between groups of different sizes. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 712–720.CrossRef
  Prathap, G. (2010). An iCE map approach to evaluate performance and efficiency of scientific production of countries. Scientometrics, 85, 185–191.CrossRef
  Schreiber, M. (2013). Inconsistencies in the highly cited publications indicator. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(6), 1298–1302.CrossRef
  Tahira, M., Alias, R. A., & Bakri, A. (2013). Scientometric assessment of engineering in Malaysians universities. Scientometrics, 96, 865–879.CrossRef
  Vanclay, J. K. (2007). On the robustness of the h-Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1547–1550.CrossRef
  Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406–415.CrossRef
  Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.
  
• 作者单位：Dragan Babić (1)
  Đuro Kutlača (2)
  Lazar Živković (2)
  Dijana Štrbac (2)
  Dušica Semenčenko (2)
  
  1. Institute “Vinča”, University of Belgrade, P. O. Box 522, 11001, Belgrade, Serbia
  2. Institute “Mihajlo Pupin”, University of Belgrade, Volgina 15, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  
• 刊物主题：Information Storage and Retrieval; Library Science; Interdisciplinary Studies;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1588-2861

文摘

Scientific productivity data (number of publications and h-indices), collected from the Web of Science (WoS) database for the period 2005–2010 for 13 countries of Southeast Europe (including Austria as the reference country) and for the 251 WoS categories were grouped, during extraction of data, into 41 fields of science (FoS) according to Frascati manual classification (OECD in Revised field of science and technology (FoS) classification in the Frascati manual, pp. 1–12, 2007). The Scientific Performance QuaLity (SPQL) level has been defined and calculated for the 13 studied countries and for all FoS based on the established best fit of the linear dependence between P 1/α and h-index. From these data the SPQL levels of the six major fields and overall country levels have been generated in a way which makes them dependent not on the quantity of scientific publications output, but on its quality thus making them suitable for constructing conceivable science policies. Nevertheless, general observed trend shows growth of the quality of scientific performance (SPQL) with scientific production output, but there are evident exceptions from such a tendency in both positive and negative directions. The highest quality levels of the reached scientific performance have been identified for the 41 FoSs (subfields) and 6 major FoS by the countries concerned.