Erratum: Corrigendum to “Is the expertise of evaluation panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: A quantitative approach based on barycenters” (Journal of Informetrics (2015) 9(4) (704–721) (S1751157715000553) (10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.009));Is the expertise of evaluation panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: A quantitative approach based on barycenters

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 704-721

  Rahman, A I M J ^a   Guns, Raf ^a   Rousseau, Ronald ^a,b   Engels, Tim C E ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c ANTWERP MARITIME ACADEMY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Barycenter; Expert panel; Matching research expertise; Overlay map; Research evaluation; Similarity matrix

Indexed keywords

BARYCENTERS; EXPERT PANELS; MATCHING RESEARCH EXPERTISE; RESEARCH EVALUATION; SIMILARITY MATRIX;

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS;

EID: 84940541815     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.09.001     Document Type: Erratum

References (30)

1. Borg I., Groenen P.J.F. Modern multidimensional scaling 2005, Springer, New York, NY, Retrieved from 〈http://link.springer.com/10.1007/0-387-28981-X〉.
2. Bornmann L. Assigning publications to multiple subject categories for bibliometric analysis: An empirical case study based on percentiles. Journal of Documentation 2014, 70(1):52-61.
3. Butler L., McAllister I. Evaluating university research performance using metrics. European Political Science 2011, 10(1):44-58. http://doi.org/doi:10.1057/eps.2010.13.
4. De Nooy W., Mrvar A., Batagelj V. Exploratory Social network analysis with Pajek 2012, Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd ed.
5. Egghe L., Rousseau R. Introduction to informetrics 1990, Elsevier Science Publishers, Retrieved from 〈https://uhdspace.uhasselt.be/dspace/handle/1942/587〉.
6. Engels T.C.E., Goos P., Dexters N., Spruyt E.H.J. Group size, h-index, and efficiency in publishing in top journals explain expert panel assessments of research group quality and productivity. Research Evaluation 2013, 22(4):224-236. http://doi.org/doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt013.
7. Jin B., Rousseau R. An introduction to the barycentre method with an application to China's mean centre of publication. Libri 2001, 51(4):225-233. http://doi.org/doi:10.1515/LIBR.2001.225.
8. Kamada T., Kawai S. An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters 1989, 31(1):7-15. http://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(89)90102-6.
9. Langfeldt L. Expert panels evaluating research: Decision-making and sources of bias. Research Evaluation 2004, 13(1):51-62. http://doi.org/doi:10.3152/147154404781776536.
10. Lawrenz F., Thao M., Johnson K. Expert panel reviews of research centers: The site visit process. Evaluation and Program Planning 2012, 35(3):390-397. http://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.01.003.
11. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L. The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics: The cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology" studies. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23408.
12. Leydesdorff L., Carley S., Rafols I. Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories. Scientometrics 2013, 94(2):589-593. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0784-8.
13. Leydesdorff L., Rafols I. A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(2):348-362. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20967.
14. Leydesdorff L., Rafols I., Chen C. Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal - journal citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(12):2573-2586. http://doi.org/doi:10.1002/asi.22946.
15. Li D., Agha L. Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?. Science 2015, 348(6233):434-438. 10.1126/science.aaa0185.
16. Nedeva M., Georghiou L., Loveridge D., Cameron H. The use of co-nomination to identify expert participants for Technology Foresight. R&D Management 1996, 26(2):155-168. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1996.tb00939.x.
17. Rafols I., Porter A.L., Leydesdorff L. Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(9):1871-1887. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21368.
18. Rahman A.I.M.J., Guns R., Rousseau R., Engels T.C.E. Assessment of expertise overlap between an expert panel and research groups. Context counts: Pathways to master big and little data. proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden 2014, 295-301. Universiteit Leiden, Leiden. E. Noyons (Ed.).
19. Rehn C., Kronman U., Gornitzki C., Larsson A., Wadskog D. Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Institutet 2014, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
20. Rons N., De Bruyn A., Cornelis J. Research evaluation per discipline: A peer-review method and its outcomes. Research Evaluation 2008, 17(1):45-57. http://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X240208.
21. Rousseau R. Kinematic of statistics of scientific output. Part I: Geographical approach. Revue Française de Bibliométrie 1989, 4:50-64.
22. Rousseau R. Triad or tetrad: Another representation. ISSI Newsletter 2008, 4(1):5-7.
23. Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. Advances in data analysis 2007, 299-306. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Retrieved from 〈http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70981-7_34〉. R. Decker, H.-J. Lenz (Eds.).
24. Van Eck N.J., Waltman L., Dekker R., van den Berg J. A Comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(12):2405-2416. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21421.
25. Van Leeuwen T.N., Calero-Medina C. Redefining the field of economics: Improving field normalization for the application of bibliometric techniques in the field of economics. Research Evaluation 2012, 21(1):61-70.
26. Verleysen F.T., Engels T.C.E. Measuring internationalisation of book publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities using the barycentre method. Proceedings of ISSI 2013: 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics conference 2013, 1170-1175.
27. Verleysen F.T., Engels T.C.E. Barycenter representation of book publishing internationalization in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(1):234-240. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.11.008.
28. VSNU Standard evaluation protocol 2003-2009 for public research organisations 2003, VSNU, NWO and KNAW, Utrecht/den Haag/Amsterdam.
29. VSNU Standard evaluation protocol 2009-2015: Protocol for research assessment in The Netherlands 2009, VSNU, NWO and KNAW, Utrecht/den Haag/Amsterdam.
30. Zhou Q., Rousseau R., Yang L., Yue T., Yang G. A general framework for describing diversity within systems and similarity between systems with applications in informetrics. Scientometrics 2012, 93(3):787-812. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0767-9.