7,475 research outputs found
Factors Influencing Cities' Publishing Efficiency
Recently, a vast number of scientific publications have been produced in
cities in emerging countries. It has long been observed that the publication
output of Beijing has exceeded that of any other city in the world, including
such leading centres of science as Boston, New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo.
Researchers have suggested that, instead of focusing on cities' total
publication output, the quality of the output in terms of the number of highly
cited papers should be examined. However, in the period from 2014 to 2016,
Beijing produced as many highly cited papers as Boston, London, or New York. In
this paper, I propose another method to measure cities' publishing performance;
I focus on cities' publishing efficiency (i.e., the ratio of highly cited
articles to all articles produced in that city). First, I rank 554 cities based
on their publishing efficiency, then I reveal some general factors influencing
cities' publishing efficiency. The general factors examined in this paper are
as follows: the linguistic environment, cities' economic development level, the
location of excellent organisations, cities' international collaboration
patterns, and the productivity of scientific disciplines
The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation
The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on
bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific
collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different
countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking
2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in
particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the
Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.
Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of
the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various
innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations
include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited
publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of
collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English
language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some
comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking, and a number of
limitations of the ranking are pointed out
Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: a country-level comparative analysis
It is several years since national research evaluation systems around the
globe started making use of quantitative indicators to measure the performance
of researchers. Nevertheless, the effects on these systems on the behavior of
the evaluated researchers are still largely unknown. We attempt to shed light
on this topic by investigating how Italian researchers reacted to the
introduction in 2011 of national regulations in which key passages of
professional careers are governed by bibliometric indicators. A new inwardness
measure, able to gauge the degree of scientific self-referentiality of a
country, is defined as the proportion of citations coming from the country
itself compared to the total number of citations gathered by the country.
Compared to the trends of the other G10 countries in the period 2000-2016,
Italy's inwardness shows a net increase after the introduction of the new
evaluation rules. Indeed, globally and also for a large majority of the
research fields, Italy became the European country with the highest inwardness.
Possible explanations are proposed and discussed, concluding that the observed
trends are strongly suggestive of a generalized strategic use of citations,
both in the form of author self-citations and of citation clubs. We argue that
the Italian case offers crucial insights on the constitutive effects of
evaluation systems. As such, it could become a paradigmatic case in the debate
about the use of indicators in science-policy contexts
Bibliometric indices as a measure of long-term competitive balance in knockout tournaments
We argue for the application of bibliometric indices to quantify long-term
uncertainty of outcome in sports. The Euclidean index is proposed to reward
quality over quantity, while the rectangle index can be an appropriate measure
of core performance. Their differences are highlighted through an axiomatic
analysis and several examples. Our approach also requires a weighting scheme to
compare different achievements. The methodology is illustrated by studying the
knockout stage of the UEFA Champions League in the 16 seasons played between
2003 and 2019: club and country performances as well as three types of
competitive balance are considered. Measuring competition at the level of
national associations is a novelty. All results are remarkably robust
concerning the bibliometric index and the assigned weights. Inequality has not
increased among the elite clubs and between the national associations, however,
it has changed within some countries. Since the performances of national
associations are more stable than the results of individual clubs, it would be
better to build the seeding in the UEFA Champions League group stage upon
association coefficients adjusted for league finishing positions rather than
club coefficients.Comment: 23 pages, 9 figures, 7 table
International Collaboration in Science and the Formation of a Core Group
International collaboration as measured by co-authorship relations on
refereed papers grew linearly from 1990 to 2005 in terms of the number of
papers, but exponentially in terms of the number of international addresses.
This confirms Persson et al.'s (2004) hypothesis of an inflation in
international collaboration. Patterns in international collaboration in science
can be considered as network effects, since there is no political institution
mediating relationships at that level except for the initiatives of the
European Commission. During the period 2000-2005, the network of global
collaborations appears to have reinforced the formation of a core group of
fourteen most cooperative countries. This core group can be expected to use
knowledge from the global network with great efficiency, since these countries
have strong national systems. Countries at the periphery may be disadvantaged
by the increased strength of the core
- …