IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v8y2014i3p503-507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On standardization of the Activity Index

Author

Listed:
  • Stare, Janez
  • Kejžar, Nataša

Abstract

Relative Specialization Index (RSI) was introduced as a simple transformation of the Activity Index (AI), the aim of this transformation being standardization of AI, and therefore more straightforward interpretation. RSI is believed to have values between −1 and 1, with −1 meaning no activity of the country (institution) in a certain scientific field, and 1 meaning that the country is only active in the given field. While it is obvious from the definition of RSI that it can never be 1, it is less obvious, and essentially unknown, that its upper limit can be quite far from 1, depending on the scientific field. This is a consequence of the fact that AI has different upper limits for different scientific fields. This means that comparisons of RSIs, or AIs, across fields can be misleading. We therefore believe that RSI should not be used at all. We also show how an appropriate standardization of AI can be achieved.

Suggested Citation

  • Stare, Janez & Kejžar, Nataša, 2014. "On standardization of the Activity Index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 503-507.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:503-507
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157714000431
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaojun Hu & Ronald Rousseau, 2009. "A comparative study of the difference in research performance in biomedical fields among selected Western and Asian countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 475-491, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joel Emanuel Fuchs & Thomas Heinze, 2022. "Two-dimensional mapping of university profiles in research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7215-7228, December.
    2. Yury Dranev & Maxim Kotsemir & Boris Syomin, 2018. "Diversity of research publications: relation to agricultural productivity and possible implications for STI policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1565-1587, September.
    3. Nestor Gandelman & Osiris J. Parcero & Matilde Pereira & Flavia Roldán, 2021. "Ventajas comparativas reveladas en disciplinas científicas y tecnológicas en Uruguay," Documentos de Investigación 125, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawson, Cornelia & Geuna, Aldo & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Toselli, Manuel & Kataishi, Rodrigo, 2015. "International Careers of Researchers in Biomedical Sciences: A Comparison of the US and the UK," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201514, University of Turin.
    2. Dag W. Aksnes & Thed N. Leeuwen & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2014. "The effect of booming countries on changes in the relative specialization index (RSI) on country level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1391-1401, November.
    3. Yi Zhang & Mingting Kou & Kaihua Chen & Jiancheng Guan & Yuchen Li, 2016. "Modelling the Basic Research Competitiveness Index (BR-CI) with an application to the biomass energy field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1221-1241, September.
    4. Ning Li, 2017. "Evolutionary patterns of national disciplinary profiles in research: 1996–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 493-520, April.
    5. Daniel Fink & Youngsun Kwon & Jae Jeung Rho & Minho So, 2014. "S&T knowledge production from 2000 to 2009 in two periphery countries: Brazil and South Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 37-54, April.
    6. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2022. "Revealing the scientific comparative advantage of nations: Common and distinctive features," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    7. Rousseau, Ronald & Yang, Liying, 2012. "Reflections on the activity index and related indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 413-421.
    8. Dragan Ivanović & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2014. "Independent publications from Serbia in the Science Citation Index Expanded: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 603-622, October.
    9. Cinzia Daraio & Francesco Fabbri & Giulia Gavazzi & Maria Grazia Izzo & Luca Leuzzi & Giammarco Quaglia & Giancarlo Ruocco, 2018. "Assessing the interdependencies between scientific disciplinary profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1785-1803, September.
    10. Grisel Zacca-González & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada, 2018. "Medical scientific output and specialization in Latin American countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1635-1650, June.
    11. Wang, Qiang & Li, Rongrong & He, Gang, 2018. "Research status of nuclear power: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 90-96.
    12. Qiuju Zhou & Ronald Rousseau & Liying Yang & Ting Yue & Guoliang Yang, 2012. "A general framework for describing diversity within systems and similarity between systems with applications in informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 787-812, December.
    13. Chen, Kaihua & Guan, Jiancheng, 2011. "A bibliometric investigation of research performance in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 233-247.
    14. Fenghua Wang & Ying Fan & An Zeng & Zengru Di, 2019. "Can we predict ESI highly cited publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 109-125, January.
    15. Li Ying Yang & Ting Yue & Jie Lan Ding & Tao Han, 2012. "A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 497-516, November.
    16. Yuzhen Liu & Caidi Li & Wentin Liu & Quanmin Dong, 2022. "Trends in Global Research on Seed Dispersal: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:503-507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.