IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v57y2023i5d10.1007_s11135-022-01562-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodi Ordinatio 2.0: revisited under statistical estimation, and presenting FInder and RankIn

Author

Listed:
  • Regina Negri Pagani

    (Federal University of Technology, Paraná (UTFPR))

  • Bruno Pedroso

    (State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná (UEPG))

  • Celso Bilynkievycz Santos

    (Federal University of Technology, Paraná (UTFPR))

  • Claudia Tania Picinin

    (Federal University of Technology, Paraná (UTFPR))

  • João Luiz Kovaleski

    (Federal University of Technology, Paraná (UTFPR))

Abstract

The assessment of scientific articles regarding their relevance to a research portfolio is becoming increasingly important. The reason is that scientific works have been growing quantitative and qualitatively. Taking this scenario into account, Methodi Ordinatio was proposed, and its major contribution was the 7th phase of the methodology, the InOrdinatio. It is an equation based on the main criteria for selecting a paper related to a theme: year of publication, number of citation and the impact factor (or journal metrics). However, finding the value of these three factors might not be an easy and quick task. Therefore, in order to improve the use of Methodi Ordinatio, two other tools were developed: FInder and RankIn. Thus, the first purpose of this paper is to present these two new tools. Additionally, considering that the impact factor has been a matter of disputes in the academia, the paper also proposes the use of one single indicator for the impact factor in the equation. To achieve this second purpose, a robust mathematical model was elaborated taking into consideration the other journal metrics in order to estimate the alternative impact factor to be used in InOrdinatio in case one or more papers are not indexed to any metrics. After testing with 48 statistical models and tools, the results show that this indicator is robust and trustworthy to be used. Finally, as the third as last purpose, this paper also proposes an alternative version to calculate the InOrdinatio, which can be flexible regarding the weight of its three criteria used in the equation.

Suggested Citation

  • Regina Negri Pagani & Bruno Pedroso & Celso Bilynkievycz Santos & Claudia Tania Picinin & João Luiz Kovaleski, 2023. "Methodi Ordinatio 2.0: revisited under statistical estimation, and presenting FInder and RankIn," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 4563-4602, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01562-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01562-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-022-01562-y
    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/s11135-022-01562-y?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. Alana Corsi & Fabiane Florencio Souza & Regina Negri Pagani & João Luiz Kovaleski, 2021. "Technology transfer oriented to sustainable development: proposal of a theoretical model based on barriers and opportunities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5081-5112, June.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Tobias Opthof, 2010. "Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(11), pages 2365-2369, November.
    3. Tóth, István & Lázár, Zsolt I. & Varga, Levente & Járai-Szabó, Ferenc & Papp, István & Florian, Răzvan V. & Ercsey-Ravasz, Mária, 2021. "Mitigating ageing bias in article level metrics using citation network analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    4. Patricia Guarnieri & Ricardo Corrêa Gomes, 2019. "Can public procurement be strategic? A future agenda proposition," Journal of Public Procurement, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(4), pages 295-321, August.
    5. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 1125-1131, August.
    6. Waister Silva Martins & Marcos André Gonçalves & Alberto H. F. Laender & Nivio Ziviani, 2010. "Assessing the quality of scientific conferences based on bibliographic citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 133-155, April.
    7. Michel Zitt & Henry Small, 2008. "Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(11), pages 1856-1860, September.
    8. Lily (Xuehui) Gao & Iguacel Melero & F. Javier Sese, 2020. "Multichannel integration along the customer journey: a systematic review and research agenda," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(15-16), pages 1087-1118, December.
    9. Zopounidis, Constantin & Doumpos, Michael, 2002. "Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 229-246, April.
    10. Vinkler, Peter, 1986. "Management system for a scientific research institute based on the assessment of scientific publications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 77-87, April.
    11. Elaine Aparecida Regiani Campos & Regina Negri Pagani & Luis Mauricio Resende & Joseane Pontes, 2018. "Construction and qualitative assessment of a bibliographic portfolio using the methodology Methodi Ordinatio," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 815-842, August.
    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. Angelica Duarte Lima & André Luiz Przybysz & David Nunes Resende & Regina Negri Pagani, 2024. "Innovation Reefs (I-Reef): Innovation Ecosystems Focused on Regional Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-21, November.

    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. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 381-394, July.
    2. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    3. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert & Bart Thijs & Koenraad Debackere, 2011. "A priori vs. a posteriori normalisation of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 415-424, May.
    4. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    5. M. Zitt, 2011. "Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 329-344, October.
    6. Chien Hsiang Liao & Mu-Yen Chen, 2018. "Exploring knowledge patterns of library and information science journals within the field: a citation analysis from 2009 to 2016," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1991-2008, December.
    7. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    8. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2016. "Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 875-887.
    9. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    10. Aksnes, Dag W. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Gunnarsson, Magnus, 2012. "Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 36-43.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 355-365, August.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou & Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 96-107, January.
    13. P. Dorta-González & M. I. Dorta-González, 2013. "Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 645-672, May.
    14. Tolga Yuret, 2018. "Author-weighted impact factor and reference return ratio: can we attain more equality among fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2097-2111, September.
    15. Pilar Valderrama & Manuel Escabias & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras & Alberto Rodríguez-Archilla & Mariano J. Valderrama, 2018. "Proposal of a stochastic model to determine the bibliometric variables influencing the quality of a journal: application to the field of Dentistry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1087-1095, May.
    16. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2016. "Normalization of Mendeley reader impact on the reader- and paper-side: A comparison of the mean discipline normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader ," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 776-788.
    17. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2011. "Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 360-368.
    18. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2013. "Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 699-716, September.
    19. Michel Zitt, 2012. "The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J.K. Vanclay’s article 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 485-503, August.
    20. Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 35-55, January.

    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:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01562-y. 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.