-
Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; Rijcke, S. de; Rafols, I.: ¬The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics : 10 principles to guide research evaluation (2015)
0.03
0.028273653 = product of:
0.056547306 = sum of:
0.056547306 = product of:
0.11309461 = sum of:
0.11309461 = weight(_text_:policy in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11309461 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Research evaluation has become routine and often relies on metrics. But it is increasingly driven by data and not by expert judgement. As a result, the procedures that were designed to increase the quality of research are now threatening to damage the scientific system. To support researchers and managers, five experts led by Diana Hicks, professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, have proposed ten principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics published as a comment in Nature.
-
Rafols, I.; Porter, A.L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Science overlay maps : a new tool for research policy and library management (2010)
0.02
0.024234561 = product of:
0.048469122 = sum of:
0.048469122 = product of:
0.096938245 = sum of:
0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 3987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096938245 = score(doc=3987,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 3987, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3987)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Liu, Y.; Rafols, I.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A framework for knowledge integration and diffusion (2012)
0.02
0.024234561 = product of:
0.048469122 = sum of:
0.048469122 = product of:
0.096938245 = sum of:
0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096938245 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper aims to introduce a general framework for the analysis of knowledge integration and diffusion using bibliometric data. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose that in order to characterise knowledge integration and diffusion of a given issue (the source, for example articles on a topic or by an organisation, etc.), one has to choose a set of elements from the source (the intermediary set, for example references, keywords, etc.). This set can then be classified into categories (cats), thus making it possible to investigate its diversity. The set can also be characterised according to the coherence of a network associated to it. Findings - This framework allows a methodology to be developed to assess knowledge integration and diffusion. Such methodologies can be useful for a number of science policy issues, including the assessment of interdisciplinarity in research and dynamics of research networks. Originality/value - The main contribution of this article is to provide a simple and easy to use generalisation of an existing approach to study interdisciplinarity, bringing knowledge integration and knowledge diffusion together in one framework.
-
Rafols, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals : perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects (2009)
0.02
0.02019547 = product of:
0.04039094 = sum of:
0.04039094 = product of:
0.08078188 = sum of:
0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08078188 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix - based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science Citation Index - can be decomposed by indexers or algorithmically. In this study, we test the results of two recently available algorithms for the decomposition of large matrices against two content-based classifications of journals: the ISI Subject Categories and the field/subfield classification of Glänzel and Schubert (2003). The content-based schemes allow for the attribution of more than a single category to a journal, whereas the algorithms maximize the ratio of within-category citations over between-category citations in the aggregated category-category citation matrix. By adding categories, indexers generate between-category citations, which may enrich the database, for example, in the case of inter-disciplinary developments. Algorithmic decompositions, on the other hand, are more heavily skewed towards a relatively small number of categories, while this is deliberately counter-acted upon in the case of content-based classifications. Because of the indexer effects, science policy studies and the sociology of science should be careful when using content-based classifications, which are made for bibliographic disclosure, and not for the purpose of analyzing latent structures in scientific communications. Despite the large differences among them, the four classification schemes enable us to generate surprisingly similar maps of science at the global level. Erroneous classifications are cancelled as noise at the aggregate level, but may disturb the evaluation locally.
-
Kay, L.; Newman, N.; Youtie, J.; Porter, A.L.; Rafols, I.: Patent overlay mapping : visualizing technological distance (2014)
0.02
0.02019547 = product of:
0.04039094 = sum of:
0.04039094 = product of:
0.08078188 = sum of:
0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 1543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08078188 = score(doc=1543,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 1543, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1543)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper presents a new global patent map that represents all technological categories and a method to locate patent data of individual organizations and technological fields on the global map. This overlay map technique may support competitive intelligence and policy decision making. The global patent map is based on similarities in citing-to-cited relationships between categories of the International Patent Classification (IPC) of European Patent Office (EPO) patents from 2000 to 2006. This patent data set, extracted from the PATSTAT database, includes 760,000 patent records in 466 IPC-based categories. We compare the global patent maps derived from this categorization to related efforts of other global patent maps. The paper overlays the nanotechnology-related patenting activities of two companies and two different nanotechnology subfields on the global patent map. The exercise shows the potential of patent overlay maps to visualize technological areas and potentially support decision making. Furthermore, this study shows that IPC categories that are similar to one another based on citing-to-cited patterns (and thus close in the global patent map) are not necessarily in the same hierarchical IPC branch, thereby revealing new relationships between technologies that are classified as pertaining to different (and sometimes distant) subject areas in the IPC scheme.
