IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v17y2008i1p59-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterisation and measurement methods for author productivity and research vitality: a study of the R&D management field

Author

Listed:
  • John Rigby
  • Keith Julian
  • Derrick F Ball

Abstract

This paper concerns methods of analysing publication data which may assist policy makers in ascertaining the vitality of particular scientific fields. A method to indicate author productivity and the relationship with the vitality of the research field is presented, based on techniques from engineering control statistics, and employing transformations suggested by Tukey. The method employed analyses author productivity and gives useful indications of the potential within a research field, while avoiding the assumptions of earlier papers based on the use of event history analysis. Applying these new techniques to a data set of the entire publications from the field of R&D management over the last 43 years provides insight into the effect of changes in institutional context upon author productivity. Implications are then considered. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • John Rigby & Keith Julian & Derrick F Ball, 2008. "Characterisation and measurement methods for author productivity and research vitality: a study of the R&D management field," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 59-69, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:17:y:2008:i:1:p:59-69
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820208X283797
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaozan Lyu & Rodrigo Costas, 2021. "Studying the characteristics of scientific communities using individual-level bibliometrics: the case of Big Data research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6965-6987, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:17:y:2008:i:1:p:59-69. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.