The problem of credit in research evaluation – the case of Economics

The measurement of scientific performance is usually done giving the full credit of each paper to all its authors. Aiming to analyze the impact of the number of authors on the performance, we propose an adjustment to the h-index that is flexible enough to allow the consideration of distinct co-authorship weighting schemes. We then evaluate the publication performance of the members of the departments of economics of the top 10 world universities. Our results show that the number of authors per paper is rapidly increasing and that this dimension measurably affects the final ranking of authors even in a subject area where the average number of authors is lower than in physical and life sciences.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Measuring scientific performance without ties: is scientific leadership the solution?

For many decisions in science, evaluators have to select, assess, and rank authors based on their scientific achievements. However, the most diffused scientific performance bibliometric metric – the h index – produces many ties, precluding its use to define a full ranking of the authors. In turn, recently, Jorge Hirsch1 proposes the ℎɑ index (which measures the number of papers of the h core in which the author was the scientific leader)and the associated rɑ index(percentage of papers belonging to the h core in which the author was leader)to capture the concept of scientific leadership. We suggest using this last measure to break the ties of the h index. The method is extremely simple and provides a complete solution to this critical problem of the h index. To that end, we develop a two steps procedure, which is able to produce a more granulated ranking of the authors.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Introducing recalibrated academic performance indicators in the evaluation of individuals' research performance: A case study from Eastern Europe

In Hungary, the highest and most prestigious scientific qualification is considered to be the Doctor of Science (DSc) title being awarded by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The academic performance indicators of the DSc title are of high importance in the evaluation of individuals' research performance not only when a researcher applies for obtaining a DSc title, but also during promotions and appointments at universities, and in the case of the evaluation of applications for scientific titles and degrees, and the assessment of applications for funding. In the Section of Earth Sciences encompassing nine related disciplines, rather than carrying out a straightforward bibliometric analysis, the performance indicators were designed as a result of a consensual agreement between leading academicians, each of whom represented a particular discipline. Therefore, the minimum values of the indicators, required to be fulfilled if one is applying for a DSc title, do not adequately reflect the actual discipline-specific performance of researchers. This problem may generate tension between researchers during the evaluation process. The main goal of this paper is to recalibrate the minimum values of four major performance indicators by taking the actual discipline-specific distance ratios into account. In addition, each minimum value will be defined by employing integer and fractional counting methods as well. The research outcome of this study can provide impetus for the Section of Earth Sciences to optimize the minimum values of the DSc title performance indicators by taking the specifics of each discipline into account. Because academic performance indicators are also employed in other Eastern European countries in the evaluation of individuals' research performance, the methods used in that paper can be placed into a wider geographical context

Publication Performance and Number of Authors – Evidence for World Top Economists

In social sciences the measurement of performance is usually done giving the full credit of each paper to all its authors. Aiming to analyze the impact of the number of authors on the performance results, we propose an adjustment to the h-index that is flexible enough to allow the consideration of distinct co-authorship weighting schemes. We then evaluate the publication performance of the members of the departments of economics of the top 10 world universities (472 authors; 15,243 papers). Our results show that the number of authors per paper is rapidly increasing and that this dimension measurably affects the final ranking of authors even in a scientific area in which the average number of authors is lower than in physical and life sciences

Publication Performance and Number of Authors – Evidence for World Top Economists

In social sciences the measurement of performance is usually done giving the full credit of each paper to all its authors. Aiming to analyze the impact of the number of authors on the performance results, we propose an adjustment to the h-index that is flexible enough to allow the consideration of distinct co-authorship weighting schemes. We then evaluate the publication performance of the members of the departments of economics of the top 10 world universities (472 authors; 15,243 papers). Our results show that the number of authors per paper is rapidly increasing and that this dimension measurably affects the final ranking of authors even in a scientific area in which the average number of authors is lower than in physical and life sciences

The problem of credit in research evaluation – the case of Economics

The measurement of scientific performance is usually done giving the full credit of each paper to all its authors. Aiming to analyze the impact of the number of authors on the performance, we propose an adjustment to the h-index that is flexible enough to allow the consideration of distinct co-authorship weighting schemes. We then evaluate the publication performance of the members of the departments of economics of the top 10 world universities. Our results show that the number of authors per paper is rapidly increasing and that this dimension measurably affects the final ranking of authors even in a subject area where the average number of authors is lower than in physical and life sciences

The problem of credit in research evaluation – the case of Economics

225-229The measurement of scientific performance is usually done giving the full credit of each paper to all its authors. Aiming to analyze the impact of the number of authors on the performance, we propose an adjustment to the h-index that is flexible enough to allow the consideration of distinct co-authorship weighting schemes. We then evaluate the publication performance of the members of the departments of economics of the top 10 world universities. Our results show that the number of authors per paper is rapidly increasing and that this dimension measurably affects the final ranking of authors even in a subject area where the average number of authors is lower than in physical and life sciences

Measuring scientific performance without ties: Is scientific leadership the solution?

For many decisions in science, evaluators have to select, assess, and rank authors based on their scientific achievements. However, the most diffused scientific performance bibliometric metric – the h index – produces many ties, precluding its use to define a full ranking of the authors. In turn, recently, Jorge Hirsch proposes the h-alpha index (which measures the number of papers of the h core in which the author was the scientific leader)and the associated r-alpha index(percentage of papers belonging to the h core in which the author was leader)to capture the concept of scientific leadership. We suggest using this last measure to break the ties of the h index. The method is extremely simple and provides a complete solution to this critical problem of the h index. To that end, we develop a two steps procedure, which is able to produce a more granulated ranking of the authors