Purpose:We aimed to measure the variation in researchers’knowledge and attitudes towards bibliometric indicators.The focus is on mapping the heterogeneity of this metric-wiseness within and between disciplines.Design...Purpose:We aimed to measure the variation in researchers’knowledge and attitudes towards bibliometric indicators.The focus is on mapping the heterogeneity of this metric-wiseness within and between disciplines.Design/methodology/approach:An exploratory survey is administered to researchers at the Sapienza University of Rome,one of Europe’s oldest and largest generalist universities.To measure metric-wiseness,we use attitude statements that are evaluated by a 5-point Likert scale.Moreover,we analyze documents of recent initiatives on assessment reform to shed light on how researchers’heterogeneous attitudes regarding and knowledge of bibliometric indicators are taken into account.Findings:We found great heterogeneity in researchers’metric-wiseness across scientific disciplines.In addition,within each discipline,we observed both supporters and critics of bibliometric indicators.From the document analysis,we found no reference to individual heterogeneity concerning researchers’metric wiseness.Research limitations:We used a self-selected sample of researchers from one Italian university as an exploratory case.Further research is needed to check the generalizability of our findings.Practical implications:To gain sufficient support for research evaluation practices,it is key to consider researchers’diverse attitudes towards indicators.Originality/value:We contribute to the current debate on reforming research assessment by providing a novel empirical measurement of researchers’knowledge and attitudes towards bibliometric indicators and discussing the importance of the obtained results for improving current research evaluation systems.展开更多
Purpose: The "Norwegian model" has become widely used for assessment and resource allocation purposes. This paper investigates why this model has becomes so widespread and influential. Approach: A theoretica...Purpose: The "Norwegian model" has become widely used for assessment and resource allocation purposes. This paper investigates why this model has becomes so widespread and influential. Approach: A theoretical background is outlined in which the reduction of "uncertainty" is highlighted as a key feature of performance measurement systems. These theories are then drawn upon when revisiting previous studies of the Norwegian model, its use, and reactions to it, in Sweden.Findings: The empirical examples, which concern more formal use on the level of universities as well as responses from individual researchers, shows how particular parts—especially the "publication indicator"—are employed in Swedish academia. The discussion posits that the attractiveness of the Norwegian model largely can be explained by its ability to reduce complexity and uncertainty, even in fields where traditional bibliometric measurement is less applicable. Research limitations: The findings presented should be regarded as examples that can be used for discussion, but one should be careful to interpret these as representative for broader sentiments and trends.Implications: The sheer popularity of the Norwegian model, leading to its application in contexts for which it was not designed, can be seen as a major challenge for the future.Originality: This paper offers a novel perspective on the Norwegian model by focusing on its general "appeal", rather than on its design, use or(mis)-use.展开更多
The research performance of top universities in China is revealed in this study and analyzed using the essential science indicators(ESI) database.Different types of bibliometric indicators are applied in this study,in...The research performance of top universities in China is revealed in this study and analyzed using the essential science indicators(ESI) database.Different types of bibliometric indicators are applied in this study,including publication output and impact indicators.This study finds that the academic performance of universities in China is advancing rapidly,with many universities coming out near the top of the rankings,especially in terms of quantity of papers.The quantitative performance of universities in China is remarkable.The research results show that there is a considerable gap between quality and quantity of research output at the top universities of China,with research influence concentrated on some specific fields for selected universities.Engineering,Chemistry and Material Science are the fields with relatively outstanding performance in the top universities.展开更多
Classification of bibliometric indicators is a fundamental issue in information science.Traditionally,the classification is based on subjective classification.This article presents an empirical study on the mathematic...Classification of bibliometric indicators is a fundamental issue in information science.Traditionally,the classification is based on subjective classification.This article presents an empirical study on the mathematics journals listed in JCR 2019 by using objective classification methods including cluster analysis,factor analysis,and principal component analysis to classify bibliometric indicators.Different classification results are compared and further interpreted,major finding are:the classification results of objective classification methods share similarities;objective classification helps better comprehend bibliometric indicators;objective classification should be used in combination with subjective classification;cluster analysis performs better in classifying bibliometric indicators than factor analysis and principal component analysis;not all the results of objective classification are meaningful;cluster of indicators has sufficient influence on subsequent evaluation and regression analysis.This study provides a new paradigm for journal classification and indicator analysis.展开更多
基金supported by the Sapienza Universitàdi Roma Sapienza Awards no.6H15XNFS.
文摘Purpose:We aimed to measure the variation in researchers’knowledge and attitudes towards bibliometric indicators.The focus is on mapping the heterogeneity of this metric-wiseness within and between disciplines.Design/methodology/approach:An exploratory survey is administered to researchers at the Sapienza University of Rome,one of Europe’s oldest and largest generalist universities.To measure metric-wiseness,we use attitude statements that are evaluated by a 5-point Likert scale.Moreover,we analyze documents of recent initiatives on assessment reform to shed light on how researchers’heterogeneous attitudes regarding and knowledge of bibliometric indicators are taken into account.Findings:We found great heterogeneity in researchers’metric-wiseness across scientific disciplines.In addition,within each discipline,we observed both supporters and critics of bibliometric indicators.From the document analysis,we found no reference to individual heterogeneity concerning researchers’metric wiseness.Research limitations:We used a self-selected sample of researchers from one Italian university as an exploratory case.Further research is needed to check the generalizability of our findings.Practical implications:To gain sufficient support for research evaluation practices,it is key to consider researchers’diverse attitudes towards indicators.Originality/value:We contribute to the current debate on reforming research assessment by providing a novel empirical measurement of researchers’knowledge and attitudes towards bibliometric indicators and discussing the importance of the obtained results for improving current research evaluation systems.
基金supported by the Swedish Foundation for the Social Sciences and Humanities(Grant No.SGO14-1153:1)
文摘Purpose: The "Norwegian model" has become widely used for assessment and resource allocation purposes. This paper investigates why this model has becomes so widespread and influential. Approach: A theoretical background is outlined in which the reduction of "uncertainty" is highlighted as a key feature of performance measurement systems. These theories are then drawn upon when revisiting previous studies of the Norwegian model, its use, and reactions to it, in Sweden.Findings: The empirical examples, which concern more formal use on the level of universities as well as responses from individual researchers, shows how particular parts—especially the "publication indicator"—are employed in Swedish academia. The discussion posits that the attractiveness of the Norwegian model largely can be explained by its ability to reduce complexity and uncertainty, even in fields where traditional bibliometric measurement is less applicable. Research limitations: The findings presented should be regarded as examples that can be used for discussion, but one should be careful to interpret these as representative for broader sentiments and trends.Implications: The sheer popularity of the Norwegian model, leading to its application in contexts for which it was not designed, can be seen as a major challenge for the future.Originality: This paper offers a novel perspective on the Norwegian model by focusing on its general "appeal", rather than on its design, use or(mis)-use.
基金Supported by the National Natural Science Fund Program(No.71073153)
文摘The research performance of top universities in China is revealed in this study and analyzed using the essential science indicators(ESI) database.Different types of bibliometric indicators are applied in this study,including publication output and impact indicators.This study finds that the academic performance of universities in China is advancing rapidly,with many universities coming out near the top of the rankings,especially in terms of quantity of papers.The quantitative performance of universities in China is remarkable.The research results show that there is a considerable gap between quality and quantity of research output at the top universities of China,with research influence concentrated on some specific fields for selected universities.Engineering,Chemistry and Material Science are the fields with relatively outstanding performance in the top universities.
文摘Classification of bibliometric indicators is a fundamental issue in information science.Traditionally,the classification is based on subjective classification.This article presents an empirical study on the mathematics journals listed in JCR 2019 by using objective classification methods including cluster analysis,factor analysis,and principal component analysis to classify bibliometric indicators.Different classification results are compared and further interpreted,major finding are:the classification results of objective classification methods share similarities;objective classification helps better comprehend bibliometric indicators;objective classification should be used in combination with subjective classification;cluster analysis performs better in classifying bibliometric indicators than factor analysis and principal component analysis;not all the results of objective classification are meaningful;cluster of indicators has sufficient influence on subsequent evaluation and regression analysis.This study provides a new paradigm for journal classification and indicator analysis.
