Quality assessment of scientific outputs using the BWM

Scientometrics

Volumn 112, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 195-213

  Salimi, Negin ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

BWM; Multi criteria decision making; Quality metrics; Research evaluation; Scientific outputs

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013078260     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2284-3     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.
2. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1), 7.
3. Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., et al. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 145–152.
4. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286–291.
5. Costas, R., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2010). A bibliometric classificatory approach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: The effects of age on productivity and impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1564–1581.
6. Duy, J., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(5), 512–517.
7. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.
8. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Berlin: Springer.
9. Gratch, B. (1985). Toward a methodology for evaluating research paper bibliographies. Research Strategies, 3(4), 170–177.
10. Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., & Figueira, J. R. (Eds.). (2010). Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis (Vol. 142). Berlin: Springer.
11. Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research–teaching nexus: The case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709–726.
12. Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2016). Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 107, 69–79.
13. Inayatullah, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Gene discourses: Politics, culture, law, and futures. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 52(2–3), 161–183. doi:10.1016/0040-1625(96)00031-5.
14. Jenkins, A., Healey, M., & Zetter, R. (2007). Linking teaching and research in disciplines and departments. York: Higher Education Academy.
15. Jensen, J.-J. (1988). Research and teaching in the universities of Denmark: Does such an interplay really exist? Higher Education, 17(1), 17–26.
16. Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. L. (2007). What causes a management article to be cited—Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 491–506.
17. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13(5), 261–276.
18. Kretschmer, H. (2004). Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic coauthorship networks, and visibility on the Web. Scientometrics, 60(3), 409–420.
19. Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530.
20. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1462–1480.
21. Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12(2), 61–90.
22. Mattsson, P., Laget, P., Nilsson, A., & Sundberg, C.-J. (2008). Intra-EU vs. extra-EU scientific co-publication patterns in EU. Scientometrics, 75(3), 555–574.
23. McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746.
24. Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation (Vol. 9). Berlin: Springer.
25. Moed, H. F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575–583.
26. Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 13–18.
27. Moed, H. F., Burger, W., Frankfort, J., & Van Raan, A. F. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149.
28. Moed, H., De Bruin, R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381–422.
29. Newman, M. E. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016131.
30. Noyons, E. C., Moed, H. F., & Van Raan, A. F. (1999). Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics, 46(3), 591–604.
31. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web [Electronic resource]. First Monday, 15(7)
32. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv:1203.4745.
33. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.
34. Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.
35. Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2016). A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 577–588.
36. Rezaei, J., Wang, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2015). Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(23), 9152–9164.
37. Ronald, R., & Fred, Y. Y. (2013). A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(26), 3288–3290.
38. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2007). The missing link: Journal usage metrics. Paper presented at the Aslib Proceedings.
39. Salimi, N., & Rezaei, J. (2016). Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1911–1938.
40. Salimi, N., Bekkers, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Does working with industry come at a price? A study of doctoral candidates’ performance in collaborative vs. non-collaborative Ph.D. projects. Technovation, 41, 51–61.
41. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 497.
42. Smeby, J. C. (1998). Knowledge production and knowledge transmission. The interaction between research and teaching at universities. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 5–20.
43. Stokols, D., Harvey, R., Gress, J., Fuqua, J., & Phillips, K. (2005). In vivo studies of transdisciplinary scientific collaboration: lessons learned and implications for active living research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 202–213.
44. Taylor, J. (2011). The assessment of research quality in UK universities: peer review or metrics? British Journal of Management, 22(2), 202–217.
45. Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605–621.
46. Torabi, S. A., Giahi, R., & Sahebjamnia, N. (2016). An enhanced risk assessment framework for business continuity management systems. Safety Science, 89, 201–218.
47. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1075–1087.
48. Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 698–710.
49. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E., Tijssen, R. J., 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.
50. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.
51. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A crossdisciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513.