Multivariate approach to classify research institutes according to their outputs: The case of the CSIC's institutes

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 323-332

  Ortega, José Luis ^a   López Romero, Elena ^a   Fernández, Inés ^a  

^a CSIC   (Spain)

Author keywords

Linear discriminant analysis; Principal component analysis; Research centres classification; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957583224     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bollen J., Van De Sompel H., Hagberg A., Chute R. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One 2009, 4(6):e6022. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.
2. Chen Y., Liu N.C. A first approach to the classification of the top 500 world universities by their disciplinary characteristics using scientometrics. Scientometrics 2006, 68(1):135-150.
3. Coccia M. Models for measuring the research performance and identifying the productivity of public research institutes. R&D Management 2004, 34(3):267-280.
4. Coccia M. Scientometric model for the assessment of the scientific research performance within the public institutes. Scientometrics 2005, 65(3):97-311.
5. Fisher R.A. The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics 1936, 7:179-188.
6. Giese E. Ranking of universities in the FRG. Scientometrics 1990, 19(5-6):363-375.
7. Glänzel W., Schubert A. A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics 2003, 56(3):357-367.
8. Harris G., Kaine G. The determinants of research performance: A study of Australian university economists. Higher Education 1994, 27:191-201.
9. Hotelling H. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology 1933, 24:417-520.
10. Kaiser H.F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1958, 23:187-200.
11. Katz J.S. The self-similar science system. Research Policy 1999, 28(5):501-517.
12. Lin J.S., Tien S.W., Chen T.S., Kao Y.H., Lin C.C., Chiu Y.H. Referential hierarchical clustering algorithm based upon principal component analysis and genetic algorithm. Proceedings of the 6th conference on WSEAS international conference on applied computer science 2007, 138-142. Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA. A. Xu, H. Zhu, S.Y. Chen (Eds.).
13. Line M.B. The 'half-life' of periodical literature: Apparent and real obsolescence. Journal of Documentation 1970, 26(1):46-54.
14. Martin B.R. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics 1996, 36(3):343-362.
15. Martinez A.M., Kak A.C. PCA versus LDA. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2001, 23(2):228-233.
16. Michel A.G., Jeandenans C. Multiconformational investigations of polypeptidic structures, using clustering methods and principal components analysis. Computers & Chemistry 1993, 17(1):49-59.
17. Modlin I.M., Gustafsson B.I., Drozdov I., Nadler B., Pfranger R., Kidd M. Principal component analysis, hierarchical clustering, and decision tree assessment of plasma mRNA and hormone levels as an early detection strategy for small intestinal neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2009, 16(2):487-498.
18. Pearson K. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine, Series 6 1901, 2(11):559-572.
19. Polanco X., François C., Keim J.P. Artificial neural network technology for the classification and cartography of scientific and technical information. Scientometrics 1998, 41(1-2):69-82.
20. Ramani S.V. Who is interested in biotech? R&D strategies, knowledge base and market sales of Indian biopharmaceutical firms. Research Policy 2002, 31(3):381-398.
21. Schubert A., Braun T. Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 1996, 36(3):311-324.
22. Shapira P., Kuhlmann S. Learning for science and technology policy evaluation. Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe 2003, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. P. Shapira, S. Kuhlmann (Eds.).
23. Sneath P.H.A., Sokal R.R. Numerical taxonomy 1973, Freeman, San Francisco.
24. Skoie H. Bibliometrics - some warnings from the north. Scientometrics 1999, 45(3):433-437.
25. Tagarelli A., Trubitsyna I., Greco S. Combining linear programming and clustering techniques for the classification of research centers. The European Journal on Artificial Intelligence, AI Communications 2004, 17(3):111-122.
26. Thijs B., Glänzel W. A structural analysis of publication profiles for the classification of European research institutes. Scientometrics 2008, 74(2):223-236.
27. Tikoria J., Banwet D.K., Deshmukh S.G. Performance measurement of national R&D organisations using analytic hierarchy process: A case of India. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 2009, 1(3):276-300.
28. Zhou F., Guo H.C., Ho Y.H., Wu C.Z. Scientometric analysis of geostatistics using multivariate methods. Scientometrics 2007, 73(3):265-279.
29. Van Raan A.F.J. Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 2005, 62(1):133-143.