Rethinking research evaluation indicators and methods from an economic perspective: The fss indicator as a proxy of productivity

Proceedings of ISSI 2013 - 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference

Volumn 2, Issue , 2013, Pages 1536-1549

  Abramo, Giovanni ^a   D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea ^a,b  

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS; ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE; LEVELS OF ANALYSIS; PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; RESEARCH ACTIVITIES; RESEARCH EVALUATION; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY;

ECONOMICS; PRODUCTIVITY;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84896816915     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T. & D'Angelo, C. A. (2012a). A sensitivity analysis of researchers' productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 192-201.
2. Abramo, G., Cicero, T. & D'Angelo, C. A. (2012b). What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93(3), 1005-1017.
3. Abramo, G., Cicero, T. & D'Angelo, C. A. (2012c). Revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 470-479.
4. Abramo, G., Cicero, T. & D'Angelo, C. A. (2012d). Revisiting size effects in higher education research productivity. Higher Education, 63(6), 701-717.
5. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A. & Di Costa, F. (2012e). Investigating returns to scope of research fields in universities. Working paper LabRTT. A short abstract available at http://www. disp. uniroma2. it/laboratoriortt/TESTI/Working%20paper/Returns_to_scope. pdf.
6. Abramo, G., Cicero, T. & D'Angelo, C. A. (2013). Individual research performance: a proposal for comparing apples to oranges. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 528-529.
7. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A. & Di Costa, F. (2011). Research productivity: are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones? Scientometrics, 88(3), 915-928.
8. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A. & Di Costa, F. (2008). Assessment of sectoral aggregation distortion in research productivity measurements. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 111-121.
9. Abramo, G. & D'Angelo, C. A. (2007). Measuring science: irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences. Current Science, 93(6), 762-766.
10. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y. & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320-1326.
11. Butler, L. (2007). Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 565-574.
12. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359-375.
13. Glänzel, W. (2008). Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. Kretschmer & F. Havemann (Eds): Proceedings of WIS Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting, Berlin, Germany.
14. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572.
15. Leydesdorff, L. & Opthof, T. (2011) Remaining problems with the "New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS, Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 224-225.
16. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer, ISBN: 978-1-4020-3713-9.
17. Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J M., Frankfort, J. G. & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1985). The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field-and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics, 8(3-4), 177-203.
18. Opthof, T. & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423-430.
19. Pontille, D. (2004). La Signature Scientifique: Une Sociologie Pragmatique de l'Attribution. CNRS ÉDITIONS, Paris, 2004.
20. QS-Quacquarelli Symonds (2011). World University Rankings. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www. topuniversities. com/university-rankings/worlduniversity-rankings.
21. RIN (Research Information Network) (2009). Communicating Knowledge: How and Why Researchers Publish and Disseminate Their Findings. London, UK: RIN. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www. jisc. ac. uk/publications/research/2009/communicatingknowledgere port. aspx.
22. SJTU-Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2011). Academic Ranking of World Universities. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www. shanghairanking. com/ARWU2011. html.
23. THES-Times Higher Education Supplement (2012). World Academic Ranking 2011-2012. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www. timeshighereducation. co. uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400. html.
24. Thompson, B. (1993). GRE Percentile Ranks Cannot Be Added or Averaged: A Position Paper Exploring the Scaling Characteristics of Percentile Ranks, and the Ethical and Legal Culpabilities Created by Adding Percentile Ranks in Making "High-Stakes" Admission Decisions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, November 12, 1993.
25. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S. & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37-47.
26. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., Van Eck, N. J.,. & Wouters, P. (2012). The leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419-243.