How many is too many? On the relationship between output and impact in research

Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 590-595

  Larivière, Vincent ^a,b   Costas, Rodrigo ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE EFFECT; CITED PAPERS; HIGHLY-CITED PAPERS; INSTITUTIONALISATION; LARGE DATASET; QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION; RETURNS TO SCALE;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

EID: 84984969713     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Abraham, P. (2000). Duplicate and salami publications. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 46(2), 67.
2. Binswanger, M. (2015). How nonsense became excellence: Forcing professors to publish. In Welpe, I.M. et al. (eds). Incentives and Performance (pp. 19-32). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
3. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1100-1107.
4. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
5. Butler, L. (2003). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39-46.
6. Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 105-125.
7. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67-90.
8. Caron, E., & van Eck, N. J. (2014). Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering. In 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Context Counts: Pathways to Master Big Data and Little Data (pp. 79-86). CWTS-Leiden University Leiden.
9. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193-203.
11. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267-288.
12. CWTS. (2013). Leiden Ranking 2013 Methodology. http://www.leidenranking.com/Content/CWTS%20Leiden %20Ranking%202013.pdf
13. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2011). The Evaluation Society. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
14. Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2004). Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key. Scientometrics, 59(2), 253-276.
15. Frey, B. S., & Osterloh, M. (2006). Evaluations: Hidden Costs, Questionable Benefits, and Superior Alternatives. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
16. Fuyuno, I., & Cyranoski, D. (2006). Cash for papers: putting a premium on publication. Nature, 441(7095), 792-792.
17. Gillespie, R. (1993). Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Goodhart, C.A.E. (1975). Problems of Monetary Management: The U.K. Experience. Papers in Monetary Economics (Reserve Bank of Australia).
19. Hanssen, T. E. S., & Jørgensen, F. (2015). The value of experience in research. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 16-24.
20. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In Lempe, I.M. et al. (eds.) Incentives and Performance (pp. 121-139). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
21. Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 135-140.
22. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
23. Sörlin, S. (2007). Funding diversity: performance-based funding regimes as drivers of differentiation in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 413-440.
24. Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406-415.
25. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131.