How do you define and measure research productivity?

Scientometrics

Volumn 101, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 1129-1144

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

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

FSS; Research evaluation; Research productivity; University rankings

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942257210     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012a). What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics,93(3), 1005–1017.
2. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012b). A sensitivity analysis of researchers’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. Journal of Informetrics,6(2), 192–201.
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., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2013a). Individual research performance: A proposal for comparing apples to oranges. Journal of Informetrics,7(2), 528–529.
6. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2007). Measuring science: Irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences. Current Science,93(6), 762–766.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2013b). Investigating returns to scope of research fields in universities. Higher Education,. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9685-x.
10. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2013c). The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences. Journal of Informetrics,7(1), 198–208.
11. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2013d). Measuring institutional research productivity for the life sciences: The importance of accounting for the order of authors in the byline. Scientometrics,97(3), 779–795.
12. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2010). National research assessment exercises: A measure of the distortion of performance rankings when labor input is treated as uniform. Scientometrics,84(3), 605–619.
13. 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.
14. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.
15. Butler, L. (2007). Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy,34(8), 565–574.
16. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.
17. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics,1(4), 359–375.
18. 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 and ninth COLLNET meeting, Berlin, Germany.
19. 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.
20. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations—What different countries get for their research spending. Nature,430, 311–316.
21. Laudel, G., & Origgi, G. (2006). Introduction to a special issue on the assessment of interdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation,15(1), 2–4.
22. Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. JASIST,62(2), 217–229.
23. Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2011). Remaining problems with the “New Crown Indicator” (MNCS) of the CWTS. Journal of Informetrics,5(1), 224–225.
24. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,16(12), 317–324.
25. May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science,275(5301), 793–796.
26. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, ISBN: 978-1-4020-3713-9.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Pepe, A., & Kurtz, M. J. (2012). A Measure of total research impact independent of time and discipline. PLoS ONE,7(11), e46428.
30. Pontille, D. (2004). La Signature Scientifique: Une Sociologie Pragmatique de l’Attribution. Paris: CNRS ÉDITIONS.
31. QS-Quacquarelli Symonds. (2013). World University Rankings 2013. Retrieved Feb. 10, 2014 from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings.
32. RIN (Research Information Network). (2009). Communicating Knowledge: How and Why Researchers Publish and Disseminate Their Findings. London, UK: RIN. Retrieved Februarys 10, 2014 from www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/research/2009/communicatingknowledgereport.aspx.
33. Scheel, H. (2000). EMS: Efficiency Measurement System. A Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Software. http://www.holger-scheel.de/ems/. Accessed 6 March 2014.
34. SJTU-Shanghai Jiao Tong University. (2013). Academic Ranking of World Universities 2013. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html.
35. THE-Times Higher Education. (2013). World University Rankings 2013–2014. Retrieved November 8, 2013 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking.
36. 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.
37. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., Van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(12), 2419–2432.
38. 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.