How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research. A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management

This study provides quantitative evidence on how the use of journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research in research evaluations. Using publication and citation data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of a number of Innovation Studies units with that of leading Business & Management schools in the UK. On the basis of various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) Innovation Studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary in their research than Business & Management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools' rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower-ranked journals; (iii) this results in a more favourable assessment of the performance of Business & Management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. This citation-based analysis challenges the journal ranking-based assessment. In short, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly 'excellence-based' journal rankings exhibit a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how the bias is likely to affect negatively the evaluation and associated financial resourcing of interdisciplinary research organisations, and may result in researchers becoming more compliant with disciplinary authority over time.Comment: 41 pages, 10 figure

How Journal Rankings can suppress Interdisciplinary Research – A Comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management

This study provides new quantitative evidence on how journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research during research evaluations. Using publication data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of innovation studies units with business and management schools in the UK. Using various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) innovation studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary than business and management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools’ rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower ranked journals; (iii) this pattern results in a more favourable performance assessment of the business and management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. Lastly, it demonstrates how a citation-based analysis challenges the ranking-based assessment. In summary, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly ‘excellence-based’ journal rankings have a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how resulting bias is likely to affect negatively the evaluation and associated financial resourcing of interdisciplinary organisations, and may encourage researchers to be more compliant with disciplinary authority.Interdisciplinary, Evaluation, Ranking, Innovation, Bibliometrics, REF

How to Host a Data Competition: Statistical Advice for Design and Analysis of a Data Competition

Data competitions rely on real-time leaderboards to rank competitor entries and stimulate algorithm improvement. While such competitions have become quite popular and prevalent, particularly in supervised learning formats, their implementations by the host are highly variable. Without careful planning, a supervised learning competition is vulnerable to overfitting, where the winning solutions are so closely tuned to the particular set of provided data that they cannot generalize to the underlying problem of interest to the host. This paper outlines some important considerations for strategically designing relevant and informative data sets to maximize the learning outcome from hosting a competition based on our experience. It also describes a post-competition analysis that enables robust and efficient assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of solutions from different competitors, as well as greater understanding of the regions of the input space that are well-solved. The post-competition analysis, which complements the leaderboard, uses exploratory data analysis and generalized linear models (GLMs). The GLMs not only expand the range of results we can explore, they also provide more detailed analysis of individual sub-questions including similarities and differences between algorithms across different types of scenarios, universally easy or hard regions of the input space, and different learning objectives. When coupled with a strategically planned data generation approach, the methods provide richer and more informative summaries to enhance the interpretation of results beyond just the rankings on the leaderboard. The methods are illustrated with a recently completed competition to evaluate algorithms capable of detecting, identifying, and locating radioactive materials in an urban environment.Comment: 36 page

The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results

Background: Previous methods of empirical mapping involve using regressions on patient or general population self-report data from datasets involving two or more instruments. This approach relies on overlap in the descriptive systems of the measures, but key dimensions may not be present in both measures. Furthermore this assumes it is appropriate to use different instruments on the same population, which may not be the case for all patient groups. The aim of the study described here is to develop a new method of mapping using general population preferences for hypothetical health states defined by the descriptive systems of different measures. This paper presents a description of the methods used in the study and reports on the results of the valuation study including details about the respondents, feasibility and quality (e.g. response rate, completion and consistency) and descriptive results on VAS and ranking data. The use of these results to estimate mapping functions between instruments will be presented in a companion paper. Methods: The study used interviewer administered versions of ranking and VAS techniques to value 13 health states defined by each of 6 instruments: EQ-5D (generic), SF-6D (generic), HUI2 (generic for children), AQL-5D (asthma specific), OPUS (social care specific), ICECAP (capabilities). Each interview involved 3 ranking and visual analogue scale (VAS) tasks with states from 3 different instruments where each task involves the simultaneous valuation of multiple instruments. The study includes 13 health and well-being states for each instrument (16 for EQ-5D) that reflect a range of health state values according to the published health state values for each instrument and each health state is valued approximately 75-100 times. Results: The sample consists of 499 members of the UK general population with a reasonable spread of background characteristics (response rate=55%). The study achieved a completion rate of 99% for all states included in the rank and rating tasks and 94.8% of respondents have complete VAS responses and 97.2% have complete rank responses. Interviewers reported that it is doubtful for 4.1% of respondents that they understood the tasks, and 29.3% of respondents stated that they found the tasks difficult. The results suggest important differences in the range of mean VAS and mean rank values per state across instruments, for example mean VAS values for the worst state vary across instruments from 0.075 to 0.324. Respondents are able to change the ordering of states between the rank and VAS tasks and 12.0% of respondents have one or more differences in their rank and VAS orderings for every task. Conclusions: This study has demonstrated the feasibility of simultaneously valuing health states from different preference-based instruments. The preliminary analysis of the results presented here provides the basis for a new method of mapping between measures based on general population preferences.preference-based measures of health; quality of life; mapping; visual analogue scale; ranking