560 research outputs found
Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: A critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative
Excellence for Research in Australia (ERA) is an attempt by the Australian
Research Council to rate Australian universities on a 5-point scale within 180
Fields of Research using metrics and peer evaluation by an evaluation
committee. Some of the bibliometric data contributing to this ranking suffer
statistical issues associated with skewed distributions. Other data are
standardised year-by-year, placing undue emphasis on the most recent
publications which may not yet have reliable citation patterns. The
bibliometric data offered to the evaluation committees is extensive, but lacks
effective syntheses such as the h-index and its variants. The indirect H2 index
is objective, can be computed automatically and efficiently, is resistant to
manipulation, and a good indicator of impact to assist the ERA evaluation
committees and to similar evaluations internationally.Comment: 19 pages, 6 figures, 7 tables, appendice
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
Do citations and readership identify seminal publications?
This work presents a new approach for analysing the ability of existing research metrics to identify research which has strongly influenced future developments. More specifically, we focus on the ability of citation counts and Mendeley reader counts to distinguish between publications regarded as seminal and publications regarded as literature reviews by field experts. The main motivation behind our research is to gain a better understanding of whether and how well the existing research metrics relate to research quality. For this experiment we have created a new dataset which we call TrueImpactDataset and which contains two types of publications, seminal papers and literature reviews. Using the dataset, we conduct a set of experiments to study how citation and reader counts perform in distinguishing these publication types, following the intuition that causing a change in a field signifies research quality. Our research shows that citation counts work better than a random baseline (by a margin of 10%) in distinguishing important seminal research papers from literature reviews while Mendeley reader counts do not work better than the baseline
The energetics of the gradual phase
Reseachers compare results with those in the chapter by Moore et al. (1980), who reached five main conclusions about the gradual phase: (1) the typical density of the soft X-ray emitting plasma is between 10 to the 11th power and 10 to the 12th power cm-3 for compact flares and between 10 to the 10th power and 10 to the 11th power cm-3 for a large-area flare; (2) cooling is by conduction and radiation in roughly equal proportions; (3) continual heating is needed in the decay phase of two-ribbon flares; (4) continual heating is probably not needed in compact events; (5) most of the soft-X-ray-emitting plasma results from chromospheric evaporation. The goal was to reexamine these problems with the data from the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) and other supporting instruments as well as to take advantage of recent theoretical advances. SMM is capable of measuring coronal temperatures more accurately and with a better cadence than has been possible before. The SMM data set is also unique in that the complete transit of an active region was observed, with soft X-ray and UV images being taken every few minutes. Researcher's were therefore able to establish the pre-flare conditions of the region and see whether anything has changed as a result of the flare. The assumptions made in attempting to determine the required plasma parameters are described. The derived parameters for the five prime flares are presented, and the role of numerical simulations is discussed
Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health
This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z”.Comparative benchmarking with bibliometric indicators can be an aid in decision-making with regard to research management. This study aims to characterize scientific performance in a domain (Public Health) by the institutions of a country (Cuba), taking as reference world output and regional output (other Latin American centers) during the period 2003–2012. A new approach is used here to assess to what extent the leadership of a specific institution can change its citation impact. Cuba was found to have a high level of specialization and scientific leadership that does not match the low international visibility of Cuban institutions. This leading output appears mainly in non-collaborative papers, in national journals; publication in English is very scarce and the rate of international collaboration is very low. The Instituto de Medicina Tropical Pedro Kouri stands out, alone, as a national reference. Meanwhile, at the regional level, Latin American institutions deserving mention for their high autonomy in normalized citation would include Universidad de Buenos Aires (ARG), Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BRA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientı´ficas y Te´cnicas (ARG), Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (BRA) and the Centro de Pesquisas Rene Rachou (BRA). We identify a crucial aspect that can give rise to misinterpretations of data: a high share of leadership cannot be considered positive for institutions when it is mainly associated with a high proportion of non-collaborative papers and a very low level of performance. Because leadership might be
questionable in some cases, we propose future studies to ensure a better interpretation of findings.This work was made possible through financing by the scholarship funds for international mobility between Andalusian and IberoAmerican Universities and the SCImago GroupPeer reviewe
Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes
Does peer review fulfill its declared objective of identifying the best science and the best scientists? In order to answer this question we analyzed the Long-Term Fellowship and the Young Investigator programmes of the European Molecular Biology Organization. Both programmes aim to identify and support the best post doctoral fellows and young group leaders in the life sciences. We checked the association between the selection decisions and the scientific performance of the applicants. Our study involved publication and citation data for 668 applicants to the Long-Term Fellowship programme from the year 1998 (130 approved, 538 rejected) and 297 applicants to the Young Investigator programme (39 approved and 258 rejected applicants) from the years 2001 and 2002. If quantity and impact of research publications are used as a criterion for scientific achievement, the results of (zero-truncated) negative binomial models show that the peer review process indeed selects scientists who perform on a higher level than the rejected ones subsequent to application. We determined the extent of errors due to over-estimation (type I errors) and under-estimation (type 2 errors) of future scientific performance. Our statistical analyses point out that between 26% and 48% of the decisions made to award or reject an application show one of both error types. Even though for a part of the applicants, the selection committee did not correctly estimate the applicant's future performance, the results show a statistically significant association between selection decisions and the applicants' scientific achievements, if quantity and impact of research publications are used as a criterion for scientific achievement
A Rejoinder on Energy versus Impact Indicators
Citation distributions are so skewed that using the mean or any other central
tendency measure is ill-advised. Unlike G. Prathap's scalar measures (Energy,
Exergy, and Entropy or EEE), the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) is based on
non-parametric statistics using the (100) percentiles of the distribution.
Observed values can be tested against expected ones; impact can be qualified at
the article level and then aggregated.Comment: Scientometrics, in pres
Flare energetics
In this investigation of flare energetics, researchers sought to establish a comprehensive and self-consistent picture of the sources and transport of energy within a flare. To achieve this goal, they chose five flares in 1980 that were well observed with instruments on the Solar Maximum Mission, and with other space-borne and ground-based instruments. The events were chosen to represent various types of flares. Details of the observations available for them and the corresponding physical parameters derived from these data are presented. The flares were studied from two perspectives, the impulsive and gradual phases, and then the results were compared to obtain the overall picture of the energics of these flares. The role that modeling can play in estimating the total energy of a flare when the observationally determined parameters are used as the input to a numerical model is discussed. Finally, a critique of the current understanding of flare energetics and the methods used to determine various energetics terms is outlined, and possible future directions of research in this area are suggested
SURVEY OF THE DEPENDENCE ON TEMPERATURE OF THE COERCIVITY OF GARNET-FILMS
The temperature dependence of the domain-wall coercive field of epitaxial magnetic garnets films
has been investigated in the entire temperature range of the ferrimagnetic phase, and has been found
to be described by a set of parametric exponents. In subsequent temperature regions different slopes
were observed, with breaking points whose position was found to be sample dependent. A survey
ba.ed on literature Data as well as on a large number of our own samples shows the general
existence of this piecewise exponential dependence and the presence of the breaking points. This
type of domain-wall coercive field temperature dependence was found in all samples in the large
family of the epitaxial garnets (about 30 specimens of more than ten chemical compositionsj and
also in another strongly anisotropic material (TbFeCo)
The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual's research output
Among the most recent bibliometric indicators for normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of citation behaviour, Kosmulski (J Informetr 5(3):481-485, 2011) proposed the NSP (number of successful paper) index. According to the authors, NSP deserves much attention for its great simplicity and immediate meaning— equivalent to those of the h-index—while it has the disadvantage of being prone to manipulation and not very efficient in terms of statistical significance. In the first part of the paper, we introduce the success-index, aimed at reducing the NSP-index's limitations, although requiring more computing effort. Next, we present a detailed analysis of the success-index from the point of view of its operational properties and a comparison with the h-index's ones. Particularly interesting is the examination of the success-index scale of measurement, which is much richer than the h-index's. This makes success-index much more versatile for different types of analysis—e.g., (cross-field) comparisons of the scientific output of (1) individual researchers, (2) researchers with different seniority, (3) research institutions of different size, (4) scientific journals, etc
- …