A bibliometric classificatory approach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: The effects of age on productivity and impact

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 61, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1564-1581

  Costas, Rodrigo ^a   Van Leeuwen, Thed N ^a   Bordons, Maria ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b la Tecnologia y la Innovacion   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; MICRO LEVEL; NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; SCIENTIFIC PERFORMANCE;

PRODUCTIVITY;

RESEARCH;

EID: 77954949347     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21348     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Abraham, P. (2002). Duplicate and salami publications. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 46(2), 67-69.
2. Aksnes, D.W., & Taxt, R.E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.
3. Allison, P.D., & Long, J.S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469-478.
4. Anderson, R.C., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1978). Publication ratings versus peer rating of universities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29(2), 91-103.
5. Araújo Ruiz, J.A., van Hooydonk, G., Torricella Morales, R.G., & Arencibia Jorge, R. (2005). Cuban scientific articles in ISI Citation Indexes and CubaCiencias databases (1988-2003). Scientometrics, 65(2), 161-171.
6. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2003). Age effects in scientific productivity. The case of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). Scientometrics, 58(1), 49-90.
7. Bordons, M., & Barrigón, S. (1992). Bibliometric analysis of publication of Spanish pharmacologists in the SCI (1984-89). Part II. Scientometrics, 25(3), 195-206.
8. Bordons, M., Zulueta, M.A., Cabrero, A., & Barrigón, S. (1995). Research, performance at the micro level: Analysis of structure and dynamics of pharmacological research teams. Research Evaluation, 5(2), 137-142.
9. Borgman, C.L., & Siegfried, S.L. (1992). Getty's synoname and its cousins: A survey of applications on personal name-matching algorithms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(7), 459-76.
10. Bommann, L., & Hans-Dieter, D. (2007). Multiple publication on a simple research study: Doesn't it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in Biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1100-1107.
11. Bommann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1286-1289.
12. Bommann, L., Wallon, G., & Ledin, A. (2008). Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes. PLoS ONE, 3(10), e3480.
13. Buela-Casal, G. (2007). Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, 71(3), 349-365.
14. Butler, D. (2007). Academics strike back at spurious rankings. Nature, 447(31), 514-515.
15. Cañibano, C., Otamendi, J., & Andújar, I. (2008). Measuring and assessing researcher mobility from CV analysis: The case of the Ramon y Cajal programme in Spain. Research Evaluation, 17(1), 17-31.
16. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists' productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55-72.
17. Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958-977.
18. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2005). Bibliometric indicators at the microlevel: Some results in the area of natural resources at the Spanish CSIC Research Evaluation, 14(2), 110-120.
19. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2006). Algorithms to solve the lack of normalization in author names in bibliometric studies. Investigacion bibliotecologica, 21(42), 13-32.
20. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007a). A classificatory scheme for the analysis of bibliometric profiles at the micro level. In D. Torres-Salinas & H.F. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI2007) (pp. 226-230). Madrid, Spain: CINDOC-CSIC.
21. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007b). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro-level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193-203.
22. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267-288.
23. Costas, R., Bordons, M., & van Leeuwen, Th.N. (2010). Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics, 82(3), 517-537.
24. Costas, R., Bordons, M., van Leeuwen, Th.N., & van Raan, A.F.J. (2009). Scaling rules in the scientific system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 740-753.
25. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion on evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558-569.
26. Cronin, B., & Meho, I. (2007). Timelines of creativity: A study of intellectual innovators in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 1948-1959.
27. Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2010). Mobility versus job stability: Assessing tenure and productivity outcomes. Research Policy, 39, 27-38.
28. De Filippo, D., Sanz-Casado, E., & Gòmez, I. (2007). Impact of the research stays on the scientific output. In D. Torres-Salinas & H.F. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2007) (pp. 848-849). Madrid, Spain: CINDOC-CSIC.
29. Dennis, W. (1956). Age and productivity among scientists. Science, 123(3200), 724-725.
30. Dietz, J.S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349-367.
31. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152.
32. Falagas, M.E., Ierodiakonou, V., & Alexiou, V. (2008). At what age do biomedical scientists do their best work? The FASEB Journal, 22, 1-4.
33. Fernández, M.T., Cabrero, A., Zulueta, M.A., & Gómez, I. (1993). Constructing a relational database for bibliometric analysis. Research Evaluation, 3(1), 55-62.
34. Franceschet, M. (2009). A cluster analysis of scholar and biliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 1950-1964.
35. García, C.E., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2005). Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness. Scientometrics, 64(3), 271-300.
36. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108-111.
37. Garfield, E. (2003). The meaning of impact factor. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3(2), 363-369.
38. Gingras, Y., Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., & Robitaille, J.-P. (2008). The effects of aging on researchers' publication and citation patterns. Plos ONE, 3(12), e4048.
39. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199-214.
40. Gómez, I., Fernández, M.T., Bordons, M., Morillo, F., & González, E. (2003). La actividad científica del CSIC a través del Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index y Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Estudio bihiométrico del periodo 1981-2001 [The scientific activity of the CSIC through the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Bibliometric study of the period 1981-2001]. Madrid, Spain: CINDOC.
41. González-Bambrila, C., & Veloso, F.M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36, 1035-1051.
42. Granadino, B., Plaza, L.M., & Vidal, C. (2005). Analysis of Spanish scientific output following the Joing Action Program (Acciones Integradas) of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCYT). Research Evaluation, 14(2), 97-102.
43. Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.
44. Hornbostel, S., Bohmer, S., Klinsporn, B., Neufeld, J., & von Ins, M. (2009). Funding of young scientists and scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 79(1), 171-190.
45. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., & Croissant, Y. (2009). Testing bibliometric indicators by their prediction of scientists' promotion. Scientometrics, 78(3), 467-479.
46. Jonkers, K., & Tijssen, R. (2008). Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts on international mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 77(2), 309-333.
47. Kempers, R.D. (2002). Ethical issues in biomedical publications. Fertility and Sterility, 77(5), 883-888.
48. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261-276.
49. Kyvik, S., & Olsen, T.B. (2008). Does the ageing of tenured academic staff affect the research performance of universities? Scientometrics, 76(3), 439-455.
50. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702.
51. Levin, S.G., & Stephan, P. (1989). Age and research productivity of academic scientists. Research of Higher Education, 30(5), 531-549.
52. Levin, S.O., & Stephan, P.E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 114-132.
53. Lewison, G., Cottrel, R., & Dixon, D. (1999). Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions. Research Evaluation, 8(1), 47-52.
54. Licea de Arenas, J., Valles, J., & Arenas, M. (1999). Profile of the Mexican health sciences elite: A bibliometric analysis of research performance. Scientometrics, 46(3), 539-547.
55. Macri, J., & Sinha, D. (2006). Rankings methodology for international comparisons of institutions and individuals: An application to economics in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20(1), 111-156.
56. Martin, B. (1978). The determinants of scientific behavior. Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review, 2(4), 112-118.
57. Martin, B.R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362.
58. Martin, B.R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12, 61-90.
59. Meyer, V.R. (2009). The h Index-help or hype? Chimia, 63(1-2), 66-68.
60. Nicolini, C., & Nozza, F. (2008). Objective assessment of scientific performances world-wide. Scientometrics, 76(3), 527-541.
61. Nederhof, A. J. (2008). Policy impact of bibliometric ranking of research performance of departments and individuals in economics. Scientometrics, 74(1), 163-174.
62. Nederhof, A. J., & van Raan, A.F.J. (1987). Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: A comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics. Scientometrics, 11(5-6), 333-350.
63. Prpic, K. (1996). Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity. Scientometrics, 36(2), 185-206.
64. Rey-Rocha, J., Garzón-García, B., & Martín-Sempere, M.J. (2006). Scientists' performance and consolidation of research teams in biology and biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Scientometrics, 62(2), 183-212.
65. Rinia, E.J., van Leeuwen, T.N., van Vuren, H.G., & van Raan, A.F.J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27, 95-107.
66. Ruíz-Pérez, R., Delgado López-Cózar, D., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2002). Spanish personal name variations in national and international biomedical databases: Implications for information retrieval and bibliometric studies. Journal of Medical Library Association, 90(4), 411-430.
67. Sandström, U., & Sandström, E. (2009, July). Meeting the micro-level challenges: Bibliometrics at the individual level. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
68. Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2003). Coping with researchers' labour market problems through public policy: The Spanish Ramon y Cajal Programme (Working Paper 03-15). Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://www. iesam.csic.es/ doctrab2/dt-0315.pdf
69. Seglen, P.O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498-502.
70. Skirbekk, V. (2003). Age and individual productivity: A literature survey. Rostock, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
71. Solari, A., & Magri, M.H. (2000). A new approach to the SCI Journal Citation Reports, a system, for evaluating scientific journals. Scientometrics, 47(3), 605-625.
72. Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). (2006). Action plan 2006-2009. Madrid: Author. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://www. csic.es/documentos/Plan-de-Actuacion-2006-2009-English.pdf
73. Sugimoto, C.R., Russell, T.G., Meho, L.I., & Marchionini, G. (2008). MPACT and citation impact: Two sides of the same scholarly coin? Library & Information Science Research, 30, 273-281.
74. Tien, F.F., & Blackburn, R.T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 2-22.
75. Turner, L., & Mairesse, J. (2002). Explaining individual productivity differences in public research: How important are non-individual determinants?: An econometric study of French physicists' publications (1986-1997). Cahiers de la MSE, 66. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://mse.univ-paris1.fr/pub/mse/ cahiers2002/V02066.pdf
76. Van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., Moed, H.F., Nederhof, T.J., & van Raan, A.F.J. (2003). The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometrics in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257-280.
77. Van Raan, A.F.J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.
78. Van Raan, A.F.J. (2001). Competition amongst scientists for publication status: Toward a model for scientific publication and citation distribution. Scientometrics, 51(1), 347-357.
79. Van Raan, A.F.J. (2004). Measuring Science. In H.F. Moed & W. Glänzel (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19-50). Alphen aan den Rijn , the Netherlands: Kluwer.
80. Van Raan, A.F.J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143.
81. Van Raan, A.F.J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment of 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491-502.
82. Van Raan, A.F.J. (2008). Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 565-576.
83. Vinkler, P. (2007). Eminence of scientists in the light of the h-index and other scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science, 33(4), 481-491.
84. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131.
85. Wooding, S., Wilcox-Jay, K, Lewison, G., & Grant, J. (2006). Co-author inclusion: A novel recursive algorithmic method for dealing with homonyms in bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 66(1), 11-21.
86. Zubieta, A.F. (2009). Recognition and weak ties: Is there a positive effect of postdoctoral position on academic performance and careers development? Research Evaluation, 18(2), 105-115.