IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v15y2024i3d10.1007_s13132-023-01613-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of a Scientific Productivity Model among World Highly Cited Authors: a Study Based on Experts’ Opinions

Author

Listed:
  • Farideh Osare

    (Shahid Chamran University)

  • Mariam Keshvari

    (Shahid Chamran University
    Knowledge and Information Science (KIS), University of Isfahan)

Abstract

This article mainly aims to investigate the relevance of a scientific productivity model (based on experts’ opinions) to highly cited authors. To this end, this study intends to first identify the scientific productivity model based on experts’ opinions and then examine it among the highly cited authors’ community. The present study was conducted by a mixed quantitative and qualitative method on two statistical communities, 12 experts (who were mainly active in scientific productivity), and 235 highly cited authors in the world participated in this research. Research data were collected using such tools as a checklist, questionnaires, and the Clarivate Analytics-WoS database and analyzed with SPSS-19 and LISREL 8 software. The scientific productivity model of highly cited authors was examined by the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This three-factor model (including individual, organizational, and bibliometric factors), which according to CFA load factors, shows that (1) the bibliographic factor (loading factor 1), (2) the individual factor (loading factor 0.69), and (3) the organizational factor (loading factor 0.63) are effective among highly cited authors (based on the scientific productivity model). Besides, the scientific productivity model fits among the community of highly cited authors through the world based on experts’ opinions. The combination of quantitative and qualitative factors presented in this model can effectively provide the basis for individual and organizational scientific development and pave the way for individuals and organizations to promote scientific productivity. In addition, the result of this research can be effective for improving and developing scientometric indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Farideh Osare & Mariam Keshvari, 2024. "Evaluation of a Scientific Productivity Model among World Highly Cited Authors: a Study Based on Experts’ Opinions," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 14452-14485, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:15:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s13132-023-01613-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-023-01613-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-023-01613-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-023-01613-1?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. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    2. Sánchez-Jiménez, Rodrigo & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2017. "The role of guarantor in scientific collaboration: The neighbourhood matters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 103-116.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2014. "How do you define and measure research productivity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1129-1144, November.
    4. Pierre Azoulay & Waverly Ding & Toby Stuart, 2007. "The Determinants of Faculty Patenting Behavior: Demographics or Opportunities?," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Qing Hu & T. Grandon Gill, 2000. "IS Faculty Research Productivity: Influential Factors and Implications," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 13(2), pages 15-25, April.
    6. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Thed N. van Leeuwen, 2002. "Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 381-397, July.
    7. Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo & Salehi, Hadi & Md Yunus, Melor & Farhadi, Hadi & Fooladi, Masood & Farhadi, Maryam & Ale Ebrahim, Nader, 2013. "A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases," MPRA Paper 46898, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Mar 2013.
    8. Angelo Corallo & Maria Elena Latino & Marta Menegoli & Biagia De Devitiis & Rosaria Viscecchia, 2019. "Human Factor in Food Label Design to Support Consumer Healthcare and Safety: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-14, July.
    9. Kristof Witte & Nicky Rogge, 2010. "To publish or not to publish? On the aggregation and drivers of research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 657-680, December.
    10. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio, 2003. "A robust nonparametric approach to the analysis of scientific productivity," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 47-69, April.
    11. Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman, 2015. "Academic faculty as intellectual property in university-industry research alliances," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 403-420, July.
    12. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Alessandro Caprasecca, 2009. "The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(1), pages 137-156, October.
    13. Péter Vinkler, 2017. "Core indicators and professional recognition of scientometricians," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(1), pages 234-242, January.
    14. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "Identifying excellent researchers: A new approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 803-810.
    15. Vincent Larivière & Benoit Macaluso & Éric Archambault & Yves Gingras, 2010. "Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 45-53, March.
    16. Dag W Aksnes & Randi Elisabeth Taxt, 2004. "Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 33-41, April.
    17. repec:cte:werepe:we1601 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2018. "Research assessment by percentile-based double rank analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 315-329.
    2. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    3. Irma Baneviciene & Maike Andresen & Vilmante Kumpikaite-Valiuniene, 2024. "Assessing the status quo of international employees’ adjustment research, 1990–2022: a review and future research agenda," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2019. "A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 405-418, August.
    6. Perme, Maja Pohar & Stare, Janez & Žaucer, Rok & Žaucer, Matjaž, 2012. "Comparison of the citation distribution and h-index between groups of different sizes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 712-720.
    7. Vahid Garousi & João M. Fernandes, 2017. "Quantity versus impact of software engineering papers: a quantitative study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 963-1006, August.
    8. Emmanuel Jeffrey Dzage & György Norbert Szabados, 2024. "The Relationship of Corporate Social Responsibility with Business Performance—A Bibliometric Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-25, March.
    9. Fulvio Biddau & Sonia Brondi & Paolo Francesco Cottone, 2022. "Unpacking the Psychosocial Dimension of Decarbonization between Change and Stability: A Systematic Review in the Social Science Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-28, April.
    10. Creso Sá & Summer Cowley & Magdalena Martinez & Nadiia Kachynska & Emma Sabzalieva, 2020. "Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry & Norrin Halilem, 2015. "What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 489-530, May.
    12. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 718-731.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2022. "Drivers of academic engagement in public–private research collaboration: an empirical study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 1861-1884, December.
    14. Giovanni Abramo & Francesca Apponi & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2024. "Do research universities specialize in disciplines where they hold a competitive advantage?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5453-5468, September.
    15. Abramo, Giovanni & Aksnes, Dag W. & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2021. "Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    16. Ana de Jesus & Minna Lammi & Teresa Domenech & Fedra Vanhuyse & Sandro Mendonça, 2021. "Eco-Innovation Diversity in a Circular Economy: Towards Circular Innovation Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-22, October.
    17. Pablo D’Este & Puay Tang & Surya Mahdi & Andy Neely & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo, 2013. "The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 481-502, May.
    18. Brito, Ricardo & Navarro, Alonso Rodríguez, 2021. "The inconsistency of h-index: A mathematical analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    19. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni, 2018. "Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 590-597.

    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:spr:jknowl:v:15:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s13132-023-01613-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.