Positive correlation between quality and quantity in academic journals

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 329-335

  Huang, Ding wei ^a  

^a CHUNG YUAN CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Article number; Correlation; Impact factor; Quality and quantity

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS;

ACADEMIC JOURNAL; ARTICLE NUMBER; EMPIRICAL DATA; HIGH IMPACT; IMPACT FACTOR; POSITIVE CORRELATIONS; SCHOLARLY JOURNALS;

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS;

EID: 84959305100     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones?. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8:89-97.
2. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: Could the latter ever be preferable?. Scientometrics 2010, 84:821-833.
3. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61:132-140.
4. Butler L. A list of published papers is no measure of value. Nature 2002, 419:877.
5. Cole S., Cole J.R. Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review 1967, 32:377-390.
6. Editorial Not-so-deep impact. Nature 2005, 435:1003-1004.
7. Frey B.S., Rost K. Do rankings reflect research quality?. Journal of Applied Economics 2010, 13:1-38.
8. Harzing A.W. Australian research output in economics and business: High volume, low impact?. Australian Journal of Management 2005, 30:183-200.
9. Hayati Z., Ebrahimy A. Correlation between quality and quantity in scientific production: A case study of Iranian organizations from 1997 to 2006. Scientometrics 2009, 80:625-636.
10. Katz J.S. The self-similar science system. Research Policy 1999, 28:501-517.
11. King D.A. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 2004, 430:311-316.
12. Levitt J.M., Thelwall M. Patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles and the prediction of their citation ranking: A comparison across subjects. Scientometrics 2008, 77:41-60.
13. Moed H.F. UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?. Scientometrics 2008, 74:153-161.
14. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 1997, 314:498-502.
15. Sidiropoulos A., Katsaros D., Manolopoulos Y. Ranking and identifying influential scientists versus mass producers by the Perfectionism Index. Scientometrics 2015, 103:1-31.
16. Smith R., Fiedler F.E. The measurement of scholarly work in academic institutions: A critical review of the literature 1970, Technical Report No. 70-2, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle.
17. Stegehuis C., Litvak N., Waltman L. Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9:642-657.
18. Stern D.I. High-ranked social science journal articles can be identified from early citation information. PLOS ONE 2014, 9:e112520.
19. Tchetchik A., Grinstein A., Manes E., Shapira D., Durst R. From research to practice: Which research strategy contributes more to clinical excellence? Comparing high-volume versus high-quality biomedical research. PLOS ONE 2015, 10:0129259.
20. van Raan A.F.J. Bibliometric statistical properties of the 100 largest European research universities: Prevalent scaling rules in the science system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59:461-475.
21. van Raan A.F.J. Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59:565-576.
22. van Raan A.F.J. Universities scale like cities. PLOS ONE 2013, 8:e59384.