Diese Datenbank enthält über 40.000 Dokumente zu Themen aus den Bereichen Formalerschließung – Inhaltserschließung – Information Retrieval.
© 2015 W. Gödert, TH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft / Powered by litecat, BIS Oldenburg (Stand: 28. April 2022)
1Kuan, C.-H. ; Huang, M.-H. ; Chen, D.-Z.: ¬A two-dimensional approach to performance evaluation for a large number of research institutions.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.817-828.
Abstract: We characterize the research performance of a large number of institutions in a two-dimensional coordinate system based on the shapes of their h-cores so that their relative performance can be conveniently observed and compared. The 2D distribution of these institutions is then utilized (1) to categorize the institutions into a number of qualitative groups revealing the nature of their performance, and (2) to determine the position of a specific institution among the set of institutions. The method is compared with some major h-type indices and tested with empirical data using clinical medicine as an illustrative case. The method is extensible to the research performance evaluation at other aggregation levels such as researchers, journals, departments, and nations.
2Huang, M.-H. ; Tang, M.-C. ; Chen, D.-Z.: Inequality of publishing performance and international collaboration in physics.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1156-1165.
Abstract: Using a database of 1.4 million papers indexed by Web of Science, we examined the global trends in publication inequality and international collaboration in physics. The publication output and citations received by authors hosted in each country were taken into account. Although inequality decreased over time, further progress toward equality has somewhat abated in recent years. The skewedness of the global distribution in publication output was shown to be correlated with article impact, that is, the inequality is more significant in articles of higher impact. It was also observed that, despite the trend toward more equalitarian distribution, scholarly participation in physics is still determined by a select group. Particularly noteworthy has been China's rapid growth in publication outputs and a gradual improvement in its impact. Finally, the data also suggested regional differences in scientific collaboration. A distinctively high concentration of transnational collaboration and publication performance was found among EU countries.
3Huang, M.-H. ; Lin, C.-S. ; Chen, D.-Z.: Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2427-2436.
Abstract: The counting of papers and citations is fundamental to the assessment of research productivity and impact. In an age of increasing scientific collaboration across national borders, the counting of papers produced by collaboration between multiple countries, and citations of such papers, raises concerns in country-level research evaluation. In this study, we compared the number counts and country ranks resulting from five different counting methods. We also observed inflation depending on the method used. Using the 1989 to 2008 physics papers indexed in ISI's Web of Science as our sample, we analyzed the counting results in terms of paper count (research productivity) as well as citation count and citation-paper ratio (CP ratio) based evaluation (research impact). The results show that at the country-level assessment, the selection of counting method had only minor influence on the number counts and country rankings in each assessment. However, the influences of counting methods varied between paper count, citation count, and CP ratio based evaluation. The findings also suggest that the popular counting method (whole counting) that gives each collaborating country one full credit may not be the best counting method. Straight counting that accredits only the first or the corresponding author or fractional counting that accredits each collaborator with partial and weighted credit might be the better choices.
Objekt: Web of Science