5 research outputs found
Credit allocation based on journal impact factor and coauthorship contribution
Some research institutions demand researchers to distribute the incomes they
earn from publishing papers to their researchers and/or co-authors. In this
study, we deal with the Impact Factor-based ranking journal as a criteria for
the correct distribution of these incomes. We also include the Authorship
Credit factor for distribution of the incomes among authors, using the
geometric progression of Cantor's theory and the Harmonic Credit Index.
Depending on the ranking of the journal, the proposed model develops a proper
publication credit allocation among all authors. Moreover, our tool can be
deployed in the evaluation of an institution for a funding program, as well as
calculating the amounts necessary to incentivize research among personnel.Comment: 9 pages; 3 figures; 2 table
Credit Allocation Based on Journal Impact Factor and Co-authorship Contribution
Abstract. Some research institutions demand researchers to distribute the incomes they earn from publishing papers to their researchers and/or co-authors. In this study, we deal with the Impact Factor-based ranking journal as a criteria for the correct distribution of these incomes. We also include the Authorship Credit factor for distribution of the incomes among authors, using the geometric progression of Cantor’s theory and the Harmonic Credit Index. Depending on the ranking of the journal, the proposed model develops a proper publication credit allocation among all authors. Moreover, our tool can be deployed in the evaluation of an institution for a funding program, as well as calculating the amounts necessary to incentivize research among personnel.Keywords. Co-author credit; Impact factor; Ranking; Cantor’s succession; Harmonic credit.JEL. A12, C02, C10
Quantifying Success in Science: An Overview
Quantifying success in science plays a key role in guiding funding
allocations, recruitment decisions, and rewards. Recently, a significant amount
of progresses have been made towards quantifying success in science. This lack
of detailed analysis and summary continues a practical issue. The literature
reports the factors influencing scholarly impact and evaluation methods and
indices aimed at overcoming this crucial weakness. We focus on categorizing and
reviewing the current development on evaluation indices of scholarly impact,
including paper impact, scholar impact, and journal impact. Besides, we
summarize the issues of existing evaluation methods and indices, investigate
the open issues and challenges, and provide possible solutions, including the
pattern of collaboration impact, unified evaluation standards, implicit success
factor mining, dynamic academic network embedding, and scholarly impact
inflation. This paper should help the researchers obtaining a broader
understanding of quantifying success in science, and identifying some potential
research directions
Technological cycles, Meta-Ranking and Open Access Performance
This thesis consists of three essays, linked by innovation, classification and
change. In the first paper, I analyze a theoretical problem regarding the reemergence
and affirmation of a technological paradigm over the others; in the
second article, I propose a framework to aggregate journal rankings and classify
academic journals; in the third essay I analyze the performance of Open Access
journals, considered an innovative form of publishing, with the aim of identifying
the main features of top-rated ones.
More specifically, the first essay deals on the technological life cycle which explains
how the battles between competing technologies sooner or later end with
the dominance of one over the others, or, under certain conditions, with their coexistence.
However, the practice points out that, sometimes, beaten technologies
can re-emerge in the market. Firms dealing with technology investment decisions
need to completely understand the competing technologies dynamics, because the
emergence of an alternative and potentially superior technology does not necessarily
mean the failure of the incumbent, and different scenario would be traced.
Starting from the analysis of the microprocessor market and considering the relationships
with complementary companies, I show how the battle for dominance
between two rival technologies can be reopened with a new era of ferment. While
factors of dominance have been explored by a great amount of literature, little has
been said on this question. In particular, I find a non-conventional S-curve trend
and I seek to explicate its managerial implication.The second chapter deals with ranking academic journals, an issue that during
the years received several contribute from literature of Business and Management
[DuBois and Reeb, 2000, Franke et al, 1990, Serenko and Bontis, 2004,
Tüselmann et al, 2015, Werner, 2002]. Ranking journals is a longstanding problem
and can be addressed quantitatively, qualitatively or using a combination of
both approaches. In the last decades, the Impact Factor (i.e., the most known
quantitative approach) has been widely questioned, and other indices have thus
been developed and become popular. Previous studies have reported strengths
and weaknesses of each index, and devised meta-indices to rank journals in a certain
field of study. However, the proposed meta-indices exhibit some intrinsic
limitations: (i) the indices to be combined are not always chosen according to
well-grounded principles; (ii) combination methods are usually unweighted; and
(iii) some of the proposed meta-indices are parametric, which requires assuming
a specific underlying data distribution. I propose a data-driven methodology that
linearly combines an arbitrary number of indices to produce an aggregated ranking,
using different learning techniques to estimate the combining weights. I am
also able to measure correlations and distances between indices and meta-indices
in a vector space, to quantitatively evaluate their differences.
The goal of the third essay, is to identify the features of top-rated gold open
access (OA) journals by testing seven main variables: languages, countries, years
of activity and years in the DOAJ repository, publication fee, the field of study,
whether the journal has been launched as OA or converted, and the type of publisher.
A sample of 1,910 gold OA journals has been obtained by combining
SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) 2012, the DOAJ, and data provided by previous studies [Solomon, 2013]. I have divided the SJR index into quartiles
for all journals' subject areas. First, I show descriptive statistics by combining
quartiles based on their features. Then, after having converted the quartiles into
a dummy variable, I test it as a dependent variable and in a binary logistic regression.
This work contributes empirically to better understanding the gold OA
efficacy, which may be helpful in improving journals' rankings in the areas where
this is still a struggle. Significant results have been found for all variables, except
for the types of publishers, and for born or converted journals
Technological cycles, Meta-Ranking and Open Access Performance
This thesis consists of three essays, linked by innovation, classification and
change. In the first paper, I analyze a theoretical problem regarding the reemergence
and affirmation of a technological paradigm over the others; in the
second article, I propose a framework to aggregate journal rankings and classify
academic journals; in the third essay I analyze the performance of Open Access
journals, considered an innovative form of publishing, with the aim of identifying
the main features of top-rated ones.
More specifically, the first essay deals on the technological life cycle which explains
how the battles between competing technologies sooner or later end with
the dominance of one over the others, or, under certain conditions, with their coexistence.
However, the practice points out that, sometimes, beaten technologies
can re-emerge in the market. Firms dealing with technology investment decisions
need to completely understand the competing technologies dynamics, because the
emergence of an alternative and potentially superior technology does not necessarily
mean the failure of the incumbent, and different scenario would be traced.
Starting from the analysis of the microprocessor market and considering the relationships
with complementary companies, I show how the battle for dominance
between two rival technologies can be reopened with a new era of ferment. While
factors of dominance have been explored by a great amount of literature, little has
been said on this question. In particular, I find a non-conventional S-curve trend
and I seek to explicate its managerial implication.The second chapter deals with ranking academic journals, an issue that during
the years received several contribute from literature of Business and Management
[DuBois and Reeb, 2000, Franke et al, 1990, Serenko and Bontis, 2004,
Tüselmann et al, 2015, Werner, 2002]. Ranking journals is a longstanding problem
and can be addressed quantitatively, qualitatively or using a combination of
both approaches. In the last decades, the Impact Factor (i.e., the most known
quantitative approach) has been widely questioned, and other indices have thus
been developed and become popular. Previous studies have reported strengths
and weaknesses of each index, and devised meta-indices to rank journals in a certain
field of study. However, the proposed meta-indices exhibit some intrinsic
limitations: (i) the indices to be combined are not always chosen according to
well-grounded principles; (ii) combination methods are usually unweighted; and
(iii) some of the proposed meta-indices are parametric, which requires assuming
a specific underlying data distribution. I propose a data-driven methodology that
linearly combines an arbitrary number of indices to produce an aggregated ranking,
using different learning techniques to estimate the combining weights. I am
also able to measure correlations and distances between indices and meta-indices
in a vector space, to quantitatively evaluate their differences.
The goal of the third essay, is to identify the features of top-rated gold open
access (OA) journals by testing seven main variables: languages, countries, years
of activity and years in the DOAJ repository, publication fee, the field of study,
whether the journal has been launched as OA or converted, and the type of publisher.
A sample of 1,910 gold OA journals has been obtained by combining
SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) 2012, the DOAJ, and data provided by previous studies [Solomon, 2013]. I have divided the SJR index into quartiles
for all journals' subject areas. First, I show descriptive statistics by combining
quartiles based on their features. Then, after having converted the quartiles into
a dummy variable, I test it as a dependent variable and in a binary logistic regression.
This work contributes empirically to better understanding the gold OA
efficacy, which may be helpful in improving journals' rankings in the areas where
this is still a struggle. Significant results have been found for all variables, except
for the types of publishers, and for born or converted journals