| 1. |
- Ahlgren, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
The role of the Chinese Key Labs in the international and national scientific arena revisited
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Research Evaluation. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0958-2029 .- 1471-5449. ; 26:2, s. 132-143
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this contribution, which builds on and develops a study that was published more than 10 years ago, we address the role of the Chinese Key Labs (KLs) in the international and national scientific arena. We give a short overview of the position of KLs in China, including their budget and manpower. Based on large numbers of Chinese publications obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), the KLs are compared across publication years to the rest of China (ChRest) with respect to publication output and citation impact. We also look at collaboration in terms of co-publishing between the KLs and the ChRest. As to publications in the WoS, we found that the contribution of KLs compared with the ChRest is slightly and irregularly increasing (using full counting as well as fractional counting), whereas a stronger increasing trend is observed for the corresponding contribution in the CSCD. We observed an increase in the number of collaborations between KLs and Chinese colleagues, regardless of database. For WoS and field normalized citation indicators, we obtained the expected results that researchers at KLs perform considerably better than other Chinese colleagues and, moreover, perform clearly better than database average. As such we may conclude that KLs have lived up to their promise and made real impact on the international arena.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rahman, Jakaria, 1977, et al.
(författare)
-
Cognitive distances between evaluators and evaluees in research evaluation: A comparison between three Informetric methods at the journal and subject category aggregation level
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2504-0537. ; 2:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article compares six informetric approaches to determine cognitive distances between the publications of panel members (PMs) and those of research groups in discipline-specific research evaluation. We used data collected in the framework of six completed research evaluations from the period 2009–2014 at the University of Antwerp as a test case. We distinguish between two levels of aggregation—Web of Science Subject Categories and journals—and three methods: while the barycenter method (2-dimensional) is based on global maps of science, the similarity-adapted publication vector (SAPV) method and weighted cosine similarity (WCS) method (both in higher dimensions) use a full similarity matrix. In total, this leads to six different approaches, all of which are based on the publication profile of research groups and PMs. We use Euclidean distances between barycenters and SAPVs, as well as values of WCS between PMs and research groups as indicators of cognitive distance. We systematically compare how these six approaches are related. The results show that the level of aggregation has minor influence on determining cognitive distances, but dimensionality (two versus a high number of dimensions) has a greater influence. The SAPV and WCS methods agree in most cases at both levels of aggregation on which PM has the closest cognitive distance to the group to be evaluated, whereas the barycenter approaches often differ. Comparing the results of the methods to the main assessor that was assigned to each research group, we find that the barycenter method usually scores better. However, the barycenter method is less discriminatory and suggests more potential evaluators, whereas SAPV and WCS are more precise.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rahman, Jakaria, 1977, et al.
(författare)
-
Expertise overlap between an expert panel and research groups in global journal maps
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. - 2175-1935. - 9789755183817 ; , s. 1035-1041
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are no available methods to measure overlap in expertise between a panel of experts and evaluated research groups in discipline-specific research evaluation. This paper explores a bibliometric approach to determining the overlap of expertise, using the 2009 and 2011 research evaluations of ten Pharmaceutical Sciences and nine Biology research groups of the University of Antwerp. We study this overlap at the journal level. Specifically, journal overlay maps are applied to visualize to what extent the research groups and panel members publish in the same journals. Pharmaceutical Sciences panel members published more diversely than the corresponding research groups, whereas, the Biology research groups published more diversely than the panel. Numbers of publications in the same journals vary over a large scale. A different range of coverage was found for different research groups; there is also a significant difference between maximum and minimum coverage based on discipline. Future research will focus on similarity testing, and a comparison with other disciplines.
|
|
| 4. |
- Rahman, Jakaria, 1977, et al.
(författare)
-
Is the expertise of evaluation panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: A quantitative approach based on barycenters
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Informetrics. - : Elsevier BV. - 1751-1577. ; 9:4, s. 704-721
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Discipline-specific research evaluation exercises are typically carried out by panels of peers, known as expert panels. To the best of our knowledge, no methods are available to measure overlap in expertise between an expert panel and the units under evaluation. This paper explores bibliometric approaches to determine this overlap, using two research evaluations of the departments of Chemistry (2009) and Physics (2010) of the University of Antwerp as a test case. We explore the usefulness of overlay mapping on a global map of science (with Web of Science subject categories) to gauge overlap of expertise and introduce a set of methods to determine an entity's barycenter according to its publication output. Barycenters can be calculated starting from a similarity matrix of subject categories (N dimensions) or from a visualization thereof (2 dimensions). We compare the results of the N-dimensional method with those of two 2-dimensional ones (Kamada–Kawai maps and VOS maps) and find that they yield very similar results. The distance between barycenters is used as an indicator of expertise overlap. The results reveal that there is some discrepancy between the panel's and the groups’ publications in both the Chemistry and the Physics departments. The panels were not as diverse as the groups that were assessed. The match between the Chemistry panel and the Department was better than that between the Physics panel and the Department.
|
|
| 5. |
- Rousseau, Ronald, et al.
(författare)
-
Measuring cognitive distance between publication portfolios
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Informetrics. - : Elsevier BV. - 1751-1577. ; 11:2, s. 583-583
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We study the problem of determining the cognitive distance between the publication portfolios of two units. In this article we provide a systematic overview of five different methods (a benchmark Euclidean distance approach, distance between barycenters in two and in three dimensions, distance between similarity-adapted publication vectors, and weighted cosine similarity) to determine cognitive distances using publication records. We present a theoretical comparison as well as a small empirical case study. Results of this case study are not conclusive, but we have, mainly on logical grounds, a small preference for the method based on similarity-adapted publication vectors
|
|
| 6. |
- Yang, Guo-liang, et al.
(författare)
-
Grading Countries/Territories Using DEA Frontiers
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of issi 2015 istanbul. - : Leuven University Press. - 9789755183817 ; , s. 436-447
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Several approaches exist related to categorizing academic journals/institutions/countries into different levels. Most existing grading methods use either a weighted sum of quantitative indicators (including the case of one properly defined quantitative indicator) or quantified peer review results. An important issue of concern for science and technology management is the efficiency of resource utilization. In this paper we deal with this issue and use multi-level frontiers of data envelopment analysis (DEA) models to grade countries/territories. Research funding and numbers of researchers as used as inputs, while papers and citations are output variables. The research results show that using DEA frontiers we can grade countries/territories on six levels. These levels reflect the corresponding countries' level of efficiency in S&T resource utilization. Furthermore, we use papers and citations as single outputs (with research funding and researchers as inputs) to show changes in country/territory level.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Yang, Guoliang, et al.
(författare)
-
Using multi-level frontiers in DEA models to grade countries/territories
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Informetrics. - : Elsevier. - 1751-1577 .- 1875-5879. ; 10:1, s. 238-253
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Several investigations to and approaches for categorizing academic journals/institutions/countries into different grades have been published in the past. To the best of our knowledge, most existing grading methods use either a weighted sum of quantitative indicators (including the case of one properly defined quantitative indicator) or quantified peer review results. Performance measurement is an important issue of concern for science and technology (S&T) management. In this paper we address this issue, leading to multi-level frontiers resulting from data envelopment analysis (DEA) models to grade selected countries/territories. We use research funding and researchers as input indicators, and take papers, citations and patents as output indicators. Our research results show that using DEA frontiers we can unite countries/territories by different grades. These grades reflect the corresponding countries' levels of performance with respect to multiple inputs and outputs. Furthermore, we use papers, citations and patents as single output (with research funding and researchers as inputs), respectively, to show country/territory grade changes. In order to increase the insight in this approach, we also incorporate a simple value judgment (that the number of citations is more important than the number of papers) as prior information into the DEA models to study the resulting changes of these Countries/Territories' performance grades.
|
|
