353 research outputs found
Origin and emergence of entrepreneurship as a research field
This paper seeks to map out the emergence and evolution of entrepreneurship as an independent field in the social science literature from the early 1990s to 2009. Our analysis indicates that entrepreneurship has grown steadily during the 1990s but has truly emerged as a legitimate academic discipline in the latter part of the 2000s. The field has been dominated by researchers from Anglo-Saxon countries over the past 20 years, with particularly strong representations from the US, UK, and Canada. The results from our structural analysis, which is based on a core document approach, point to five large knowledge clusters and further 16 sub-clusters. We characterize the clusters from their cognitive structure and assess the strength of the relationships between these clusters. In addition, a list of most cited articles is presented and discussed
Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis
The h-index has received an enormous attention for being an indicator that measures the quality of researchers and organizations. We investigate to what degree authors can inflate their h-index through strategic self-citations with the help of a simulation. We extended Burrell’s publication model with a procedure for placing self-citations, following three different strategies: random self-citation, recent self-citations and h-manipulating self-citations. The results show that authors can considerably inflate their h-index through self-citations. We propose the q-index as an indicator for how strategically an author has placed self-citations, and which serves as a tool to detect possible manipulation of the h-index. The results also show that the best strategy for an high h-index is publishing papers that are highly cited by others. The productivity has also a positive effect on the h-index
A New Approach to Analyzing Patterns of Collaboration in Co-authorship Networks - Mesoscopic Analysis and Interpretation
This paper focuses on methods to study patterns of collaboration in
co-authorship networks at the mesoscopic level. We combine qualitative methods
(participant interviews) with quantitative methods (network analysis) and
demonstrate the application and value of our approach in a case study comparing
three research fields in chemistry. A mesoscopic level of analysis means that
in addition to the basic analytic unit of the individual researcher as node in
a co-author network, we base our analysis on the observed modular structure of
co-author networks. We interpret the clustering of authors into groups as
bibliometric footprints of the basic collective units of knowledge production
in a research specialty. We find two types of coauthor-linking patterns between
author clusters that we interpret as representing two different forms of
cooperative behavior, transfer-type connections due to career migrations or
one-off services rendered, and stronger, dedicated inter-group collaboration.
Hence the generic coauthor network of a research specialty can be understood as
the overlay of two distinct types of cooperative networks between groups of
authors publishing in a research specialty. We show how our analytic approach
exposes field specific differences in the social organization of research.Comment: An earlier version of the paper was presented at ISSI 2009, 14-17
July, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revised version accepted on 2 April 2010 for
publication in Scientometrics. Removed part on node-role connectivity profile
analysis after finding error in calculation and deciding to postpone
analysis
The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe's g index
The g index was introduced by Leo Egghe as an improvement of Hirsch's index h
for measuring the overall citation record of a set of articles. It better takes
into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations than the h
index. I propose to sharpen this g index by excluding the self-citations. I
have worked out nine practical cases in physics and compare the h and g values
with and without self-citations. As expected, the g index characterizes the
data set better than the h index. The influence of the self-citations appears
to be more significant for the g index than for the h index.Comment: 9 pages, 2 figures, submitted to Scientometric
Statistical inference on the h-index with an application to top-scientist performance
Despite the huge amount of literature on h-index, few papers have been
devoted to the statistical analysis of h-index when a probabilistic
distribution is assumed for citation counts. The present contribution relies on
showing the available inferential techniques, by providing the details for
proper point and set estimation of the theoretical h-index. Moreover, some
issues on simultaneous inference - aimed to produce suitable scholar
comparisons - are carried out. Finally, the analysis of the citation dataset
for the Nobel Laureates (in the last five years) and for the Fields medallists
(from 2002 onward) is proposed.Comment: 14 pages, 3 table
Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods
This paper focuses on the study of self-citations at the meso and micro (individual) levels, on the basis of an analysis of the production (1994–2004) of individual researchers working at the Spanish CSIC in the areas of Biology and Biomedicine and Material Sciences. Two different types of self-citations are described: author self-citations (citations received from the author him/herself) and co-author self-citations (citations received from the researchers’ co-authors but without his/her participation). Self-citations do not play a decisive role in the high citation scores of documents either at the individual or at the meso level, which are mainly due to external citations. At micro-level, the percentage of self-citations does not change by professional rank or age, but differences in the relative weight of author and co-author self-citations have been found. The percentage of co-author self-citations tends to decrease with age and professional rank while the percentage of author self-citations shows the opposite trend. Suppressing author self-citations from citation counts to prevent overblown self-citation practices may result in a higher reduction of citation numbers of old scientists and, particularly, of those in the highest categories. Author and co-author self-citations provide valuable information on the scientific communication process, but external citations are the most relevant for evaluative purposes. As a final recommendation, studies considering self-citations at the individual level should make clear whether author or total self-citations are used as these can affect researchers differently
The substantive and practical significance of citation impact differences between institutions: Guidelines for the analysis of percentiles using effect sizes and confidence intervals
In our chapter we address the statistical analysis of percentiles: How should
the citation impact of institutions be compared? In educational and
psychological testing, percentiles are already used widely as a standard to
evaluate an individual's test scores - intelligence tests for example - by
comparing them with the percentiles of a calibrated sample. Percentiles, or
percentile rank classes, are also a very suitable method for bibliometrics to
normalize citations of publications in terms of the subject category and the
publication year and, unlike the mean-based indicators (the relative citation
rates), percentiles are scarcely affected by skewed distributions of citations.
The percentile of a certain publication provides information about the citation
impact this publication has achieved in comparison to other similar
publications in the same subject category and publication year. Analyses of
percentiles, however, have not always been presented in the most effective and
meaningful way. New APA guidelines (American Psychological Association, 2010)
suggest a lesser emphasis on significance tests and a greater emphasis on the
substantive and practical significance of findings. Drawing on work by Cumming
(2012) we show how examinations of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d statistic) and
confidence intervals can lead to a clear understanding of citation impact
differences
Evolutionary Events in a Mathematical Sciences Research Collaboration Network
This study examines long-term trends and shifting behavior in the
collaboration network of mathematics literature, using a subset of data from
Mathematical Reviews spanning 1985-2009. Rather than modeling the network
cumulatively, this study traces the evolution of the "here and now" using
fixed-duration sliding windows. The analysis uses a suite of common network
diagnostics, including the distributions of degrees, distances, and clustering,
to track network structure. Several random models that call these diagnostics
as parameters help tease them apart as factors from the values of others. Some
behaviors are consistent over the entire interval, but most diagnostics
indicate that the network's structural evolution is dominated by occasional
dramatic shifts in otherwise steady trends. These behaviors are not distributed
evenly across the network; stark differences in evolution can be observed
between two major subnetworks, loosely thought of as "pure" and "applied",
which approximately partition the aggregate. The paper characterizes two major
events along the mathematics network trajectory and discusses possible
explanatory factors.Comment: 30 pages, 14 figures, 1 table; supporting information: 5 pages, 5
figures; published in Scientometric
World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science
Modern information and communication technologies, especially the Internet,
have diminished the role of spatial distances and territorial boundaries on the
access and transmissibility of information. This has enabled scientists for
closer collaboration and internationalization. Nevertheless, geography remains
an important factor affecting the dynamics of science. Here we present a
systematic analysis of citation and collaboration networks between cities and
countries, by assigning papers to the geographic locations of their authors'
affiliations. The citation flows as well as the collaboration strengths between
cities decrease with the distance between them and follow gravity laws. In
addition, the total research impact of a country grows linearly with the amount
of national funding for research & development. However, the average impact
reveals a peculiar threshold effect: the scientific output of a country may
reach an impact larger than the world average only if the country invests more
than about 100,000 USD per researcher annually.Comment: Published version. 9 pages, 5 figures + Appendix, The world citation
and collaboration networks at both city and country level are available at
http://becs.aalto.fi/~rajkp/datasets.htm
Long term productivity and collaboration in information science
This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 02/07/2016, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2061-8
The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Funding bodies have tended to encourage collaborative research because it is generally more highly cited than sole author research. But higher mean citation for collaborative articles does not imply collaborative researchers are in general more research productive. This article assesses the extent to which research productivity varies with the number of collaborative partners for long term researchers within three Web of Science subject areas: Information Science & Library Science, Communication and Medical Informatics. When using the whole number counting system, researchers who worked in groups of 2 or 3 were generally the most productive, in terms of producing the most papers and citations. However, when using fractional counting, researchers who worked in groups of 1 or 2 were generally the most productive. The findings need to be interpreted cautiously, however, because authors that produce few academic articles within a field may publish in other fields or leave academia and contribute to society in other ways
- …