Do first rate scientists work at first rate organizations?

Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 47-60

  Yang, Bo ^a   Rousseau, Ronald ^b,c   Huang, Shuiqing ^a   Yan, Sulan ^a  

^a NANJING AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

First rate organizations; First rate scientists; Skewness of science; Tipping number (TIP); Total citations; World class universities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929926787     PISSN: 13946234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T. and D'Angelo, C. A. 2012. The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 6, no. 2: 155-168.
2. Abramo, G., Cicero, T. and D'Angelo, C. A. 2013. The impact of unproductive and top researchers on overall university research performance. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 7, no. 1: 166-175.
3. Aziz, N. A, and Rozing, M. P. 2012. Profit (p)-index: The degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLOS ONE Vol. 8, no. 4: e59814.
4. Bookstein, F. L., Seidler, H., Fieder, M., and Winckler, G. 2010. Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings. Scientometrics, Vol. 85, no. 1: 295-299.
5. Bornmann, L. and Bauer, J. (in press). Which of the world's institutions employ the most highly cited researchers? An evaluation of the data from highlycited.com. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
6. Bradford, S. C. 1934. Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, Vol. 137, 85-86.
7. Buela-Casal, G., Gutierrez-Martinez, O., Bermudez-Sanchez, M. P. and Vadillo-Munoz, O. 2007. Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, Vol. 71, no. 3: 349-365.
8. Butler, D. 2010. University rankings smarten up. Nature, Vol. 464: 16-17.
9. Dehon, C., McCathie, A. and Verardi, V. 2010. Uncovering excellence in academic rankings: a closer look at the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, Vol. 83, no. 2: 515-524.
10. Gaston, J. 1978. The reward system in British and American science. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Hirsch, J.E. 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Vol. 102, no. 46: 16569-16572.
12. Huang, SQ., Yang, B., Yan, SL. and Rousseau, R. 2014. Institution name disambiguation for research assessment. Scientometrics, Vol. 99, no.3: 823-838.
13. The KNUDOP Search Group. 2008. Podunk effect. ISSI Newsletter, Vol. 4, no. 2: 23.
14. Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., Archambault, E., and Gingras, Y. 2010. Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Research Evaluation, Vol. 19, no. 1: 45-53.
15. Liang, L.M. and Rousseau, R. 2009. A general approach to citation analysis and an h-Index based on the standard impact factor framework. In: ISSI 2009; 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (Birger Larsen & Jacqueline Leta, eds.), Rio de Janeiro: BIREME & Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 143-153.
16. Liu, Y.X. and Rousseau, R. 2010. Knowledge diffusion through publications and citations: a case study using ESI-fields as unit of diffusion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61, no. 2: 340-351.
17. Mahbuba, D. and Rousseau, R. 2011. The Matthew effect and a relation with concept symbols and defaults. Annals of Library and Information Studies, Vol. 58, no. 4: 335-345.
18. Mahbuba, D., Rousseau, R. and Srivastava, D. 2010. A scientometric study of health and population research in South Asia: focus on two research organizations. Malaysian Journal of Library Information Science, Vol. 15, no. 3: 135-147.
19. Merton, R. K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science, Vol. 159: 56-63.
20. Merton, R. K. 1988. The Matthew effect in science II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, Vol. 79, no. 4: 606-623.
21. Prathap, G. 2006. Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions' scientific research output. Current Science, Vol. 91, no. 11: 1439.
22. Rodriguez-Navarro, A. 2011. A simple index for the high-citation tail of citation distribution to quantify research performance in counties and institutions. PLOS ONE, Vol. 6, no. 5: e20510.
23. Rodriguez-Navarro, A. 2012. Counting highly cited papers for university research assessment: conceptual and technical issues. PLOS ONE, Vol. 7, no. 10: e47210.
24. Seglen, P. O. 1992. The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 43, no. 9: 628-638.
25. Seglen, P. O. 1994. Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 45, no. 1: 1-11.
26. Smalheiser, N. R. and Torvik, V. I. 2009. Author name disambiguation. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 43, no. 1: 1-43.
27. Strotmann, A. and Zhao, DZ. 2012. Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 63, no. 9: 1820-1833.
28. Thomson Reuters. 2014. The world's most influential scientific minds. Bethesda, MD, USA: Thomson Reuters.
29. Van Parijs, P. 2009. European higher education under the spell of university rankings. Ethical perspectives, Vol. 16, no. 2: 189-206.
30. Van Raan, A. F. J. 2005. Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, Vol. 62, no. 1: 133-143.
31. Vieira, E.S and Gomes, J. A. N. F. 2011. An impact indicator for researchers. Scientometrics, Vol. 89, no. 2: 607-629.
32. Yazit, N. and Zainab, A. N 2007. Publication productivity of Malaysian authors and institutions in LIS. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, Vol. 12, no. 2-3: 35-55.