Ranking research institutions by the number of highly-cited articles per scientist

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 915-923

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

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Italy; Research evaluation; University

Indexed keywords

EFFICIENCY;

BIBLIOMETRICS; HARD SCIENCE; ITALY; RESEARCH EVALUATION; RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS; UNIVERSITY;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

EID: 84944186030     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. Mapping excellence in national research systems: The case of Italy. Evaluation Review 2009, 33(2):159-188.
2. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones?. Scientometrics 2011, 88(3):915-928.
3. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. Revisiting size effects in higher education research productivity. Higher Education 2012, 63(6):701-717.
4. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance?. Scientometrics 2012, 93(3):1005-1017.
5. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. A sensitivity analysis of researchers' productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(2):192-201.
6. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. Revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):470-479.
7. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Rosati F. 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 2013, 7(1):198-208.
8. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. Are the authors of highly-cited articles also the most productive ones?. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(1):89-97.
9. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. Inefficiency in selecting products for submission to national research assessment exercises. Scientometrics 2014, 98(3):2069-2086.
10. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. Investigating returns to scope of research fields in universities. Higher Education 2014, 68(1):69-85.
11. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A. How do you define and measure research productivity?. Scientometrics 2014, 101(2):1129-1144.
12. Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics 2005, 63(1):87-120.
13. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L. Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? A new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(10):1954-1962.
14. Bornmann L., De Moya Anegón F., Leydesdorff L. The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(2):333-335.
15. Butler L. Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy 2007, 34(8):565-574.
16. Cho K.W., Tse C.S., Neely J.H. Citation rates for experimental psychology articles published between 1950 and 2004: Top-cited articles in behavioral cognitive psychology. Memory & Cognition 2012, 40(7):1132-1161.
17. D'Angelo C.A., Giuffrida C., Abramo G. A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in large-scale bibliometric databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(2):257-269.
18. Garfield E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics 1979, 1(4):359-375.
19. Golden J., Carstensen F.V. Academic research productivity, department size and organization: Further results, comment. Economics of Education Review 1992, 11(2):169-171.
20. Hennessey K., Afshar K., MacNeily A.E. The top 100 cited articles in urology. Canadian Urological Association Journal 2009, 3(4):293.
21. Khan M.A., Ho Y.S. Top-cited articles in environmental sciences: Merits and demerits of citation analysis. Science of the Total Environment 2012, 431:122-127.
22. Moed H.F., Buger W.J., Franfort J.G., van Raan A.F.J. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy 1985, 14(3):131-149.
23. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation 2005, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
24. Pontille D. La Signature Scientifique: Une Sociologie Pragmatique de l'Attribution 2004, 2004. CNRS ÉDITIONS, Paris.
25. RIN (Research Information Network) Communicating knowledge: How and why researchers publish and disseminate their findings 2009, RIN, London, UK, Retrieved from 〈http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/communicating-knowledge-how-and-why-researchers-pu〉 (August 31, 2015).
26. Seglen P.O., Asknes D.G. Scientific productivity and group size: A bibliometric analysis of Norwegian microbiological research. Scientometrics 2000, 49(1):123-143.
27. Shapiro F.R. The most-cited articles from the Yale Law Journal. Yale Law Journal 1991, 100(5):1449-1514.
28. Tijssen R.J.W. Scoreboards of research excellence. Research Evaluation 2003, 12(2):91-103.
29. Waltman L., Calero-Medina C., Kosten J., Noyons E.C.M., Tijssen R.J.W., Van Eck N.J., et al. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(12):2419-2432.
30. Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics 2013, 94(3):851-872.
31. Zitt M., Ramanana-Rahary S., Bassecoulard E. Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics 2005, 63(2):373-401.