On the quality evaluation of scientific entities in Poland supported by consistency-driven pairwise comparisons method

Scientometrics

Volumn 99, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 911-926

  Koczkodaj, Waldemar W ^a   Kułakowski, Konrad ^b   Ligęza, Antoni ^b  

^a LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b AGH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Poland)

Author keywords

Academic entity quality; Expert opinion; Inconsistency analysis; Pairwise comparisons; Performance evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900476728     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1258-y     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Aczél, J., & Saaty, T. L. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27(1): 93-102. doi: 10. 1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7.
2. Anholcer, M., Babiy, V., Bozóki, S., & Koczkodaj, W. W. (2010). A simplified implementation of the least squares solution for pairwise comparisons matrices. Central European Journal of Operations Research 19(4): 439-444.
3. Bozóki, S., & Rapcsak, T. (2008). On Saaty's and Koczkodaj's inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of Global Optimization 42(2): 157-175.
4. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., & Rónyai, L. (2010). On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 52(1-2): 318 - 333, doi: 10. 1016/j. mcm. 2010. 02. 047, URL http://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0895717710001159.
5. Condercet, M. (1785). Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.
6. Crawford, G. B. (1987). The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Mathematical Modelling 9(3-5): 327 - 334 doi: 10. 1016/0270-0255(87)90489-1, URL http://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0270025587904891.
7. Dong, Y., Xu, Y., Li, H., & Dai, M. (2008). A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 186(1): 229-242.
8. Fechner, G. T. (1966). Elements of psychophysics, vol 1. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
9. Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2012). Evaluating research institutions: The potential of the success-index. Scientometrics 96(1): 85-101.
10. Fülöp, J., Koczkodaj, W. W., & Szarek, S. J. (2010). A different perspective on a scale for pairwise comparisons. Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence 1: 71-84.
11. Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva 41(4): 277-304.
12. Geuna, A., of Sussex SPRU: Science U, Research TP (1999). The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences? Electronic working paper series, University of Sussex, SPRU, URL http://books. google. pl/books?id=lBpuMwEACAAJ.
13. Grzybowski, A. Z. (2012). Note on a new optimization based approach for estimating priority weights and related consistency index. Expert Systems with Applications 39(14): 11, 699-11, 708.
14. Herman, M. W., & Koczkodaj, W. W. (1996). A monte carlo study of pairwise comparison. Inf Process Lett 57(1): 25-29 doi: 10. 1016/0020-0190(95)00185-9.
15. Jensen, R. E. (1984). An alternative scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28(3): 317 - 332. doi: 10. 1016/0022-2496(84)90003-8, URL http://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0022249684900038.
16. Ji, P., & Jiang, R. (2003). Scale transitivity in the AHP. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54(8): 896-905 doi: 10. 1057/palgrave. jors. 2601557.
17. Kistryn, S. (2013). Mission of CEAE - how easy is to evaluate the quality? (Misja KEJN - czy łatwo ocenić jakość?). URL http://forumakademickie. pl/fa/2012/05/misja-kejn-czy-latwo-ocenic-jakosc/.
18. Koczkodaj, W. W. (1993). A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Math Comput Model 18(7): 79-84. doi: 10. 1016/0895-7177(93)90059-8.
19. Koczkodaj, W. W., & Szarek, S. J. (2010). On distance-based inconsistency reduction algorithms for pairwise comparisons. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18(6): 859-869.
20. Kohavi, R. (1995). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann. pp 1137-1143.
21. Kułakowski, K. (2013). A heuristic rating estimation algorithm for the pairwise comparisons method. Central European Journal of Operations Research pp 1-17, doi: 10. 1007/s10100-013-0311-x.
22. Ministry of Science and Higher Education. (2012). Regulation on principles of science financing (Polish: Rozporza{ogonek}dzenie Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego w sprawie kryteriów i trybu przyznawania kategorii naukowej jednostkom naukowym). Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej 877, URL http://www. bip. nauka. gov. pl/_gAllery/19/31/19319/poz._877. pdf.
23. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3): 234 - 281, doi: 10. 1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5, URL http://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0022249677900335.
24. Saaty, T. L. (2005). The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, vol 78, Springer New York, pp 345-405. doi: 10. 1007/0-387-23081-5_9.
25. Saaty, T. L. (2008) Relative Measurement and Its Generalization in Decision Making. Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors. The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. Estadística e Investigación Operativa / Statistics and Operations Research (RACSAM) 102: 251-318.
26. Saaty, T. L. (2013). On the measurement of intangibles. A principal eigenvector approach to relative measurement derived from paired comparisons. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 60(02): 192.
27. Salo, A. A., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (1997). On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6(6): 309-319. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199711)6: 6<309:: AID-MCDA163>3. 0. CO;2-2.
28. Subramanian, N., & Ramanathan, R. (2012). A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management. International Journal of Production Economics 138(2): 215-241.
29. Thurstone, L. L. (1994). A law of comparative judgment, reprint of an original work published in 1927. Psychological Review 101: 266-270.
30. Triantaphyllou, E., Lootsma, F. A., Pardalos, P. M., & Mann, S. H. (1994). On the evaluation and application of different scales for quantifying pairwise comparisons in fuzzy sets. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 3(3): 133-155.
31. Wang, X., Liu, D., Ding, K., & Wang, X. (2011). Science funding and research output: A study on 10 countries. Scientometrics 91(2): 591-599.