IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v112y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2427-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citation-based criteria of the significance of the research activity of scientific teams

Author

Listed:
  • Olga Popova

    (Kuban State Technological University)

  • Dmitry Romanov

    (Kuban State Technological University)

  • Alexander Drozdov

    (Kuban State Technological University)

  • Alexander Gerashchenko

    (Kuban State Technological University)

Abstract

The objective of this research is elaborating new criteria for evaluating the significance of the research results achieved by scientific teams. It is known, that the h-index (Hirsch index) is used to evaluate scientific organizations, as well as individual scientific workers. On the one hand, such a scientometric indicator as the “h-index of a scientific organization” reflects the organization’s scientific potential objectively. On the other hand, it does not always adequately reflect the significance that the results of a scientific team’s research activity have for the scientific megaenvironment (scientific community). The i-index has an even greater disadvantage, being principally limited by the size of a scientific team, although h-index is also dependent on the number of publications. Not trying to diminish the significance of the traditional parameters for monitoring the research activity of scientific organizations, including the institutions of higher education, the authors stress the necessity of using not only the traditional indicators, but also other parameters reflecting the significance of a scientific team’s research results for the scientific community. It should also not be forgotten that a scientific team is a social system whose functioning is not limited to the “sum” of individual scientific workers’ activities. The authors suggest new criteria of significance of research activity of scientific teams, which are suitable for the specific usage, hence they (the indicators) should be used with great caution; it is most appropriate to use the authors’ criteria for analyzing the dynamics of the research activity of scientific teams (following the principle “Compare yourself with yesterday’s yourself”). The authors’ proposed citation-based indicators make it possible to evaluate the true significance of research activity of a scientific team for the scientific community; while defining and justifying the new criteria, the authors also took into consideration the actuality of such a problem as the struggle with the self-citation effect (in a wider context—the problem of struggling with the artificial “improvement” of the scientometric indicators). The methodological basis of the research is formed by the system, metasystem, probability statistic, synergetic, sociological and qualimetric approaches. The research methods are the analysis of the problem situation, the analysis of the scientific literature and the best practices of research activity management at the institutions of higher education (benchmarking), the cognitive, structural–functional and mathematical modelling, the methods of graph, set and relation theory, the methods of qualimetry (the theory of latent variables), the methods of probability theory and mathematical statistics.

Suggested Citation

  • Olga Popova & Dmitry Romanov & Alexander Drozdov & Alexander Gerashchenko, 2017. "Citation-based criteria of the significance of the research activity of scientific teams," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1179-1202, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2427-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2427-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2427-6
    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/s11192-017-2427-6?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. Guns, Raf & Rousseau, Ronald, 2009. "Real and rational variants of the h-index and the g-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 64-71.
    2. van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo, 2008. "Generalizing the h- and g-indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 263-271.
    3. Sune Lehmann & Andrew D. Jackson & Benny E. Lautrup, 2006. "Measures for measures," Nature, Nature, vol. 444(7122), pages 1003-1004, December.
    4. James A. Christiansen, 2000. "Building the Innovative Organization," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-333-97744-6, December.
    5. Zopounidis, Constantin & Doumpos, Michael, 2002. "Multi-group discrimination using multi-criteria analysis: Illustrations from the field of finance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 371-389, June.
    6. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2008. "Generalizing the h- and g-indices," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-049-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Domenico Maisano & Anna Perotti & Andrea Proto, 2010. "Analysis of the ch-index: an indicator to evaluate the diffusion of scientific research output by citers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 203-217, October.
    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. Keng-Yu Lin & Kuei-Hu Chang, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and Information Processing: A Systematic Literature Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Ma, Guoshuai & Yuhua, Qian & Zhang, Yayu & Yan, Hongren & Cheng, Honghong & Hu, Zhiguo, 2022. "The recognition of kernel research team," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    3. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1107-1113, May.

    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. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2016. "A theoretical evaluation of Hirsch-type bibliometric indicators confronted with extreme self-citation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 552-566.
    2. Waltman, L. & van Eck, N.J.P., 2009. "A Taxonomy of Bibliometric Performance Indicators Based on the Property of Consistency," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-014-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2010. "The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 407-414.
    4. Schreiber, Michael, 2013. "A case study of the arbitrariness of the h-index and the highly-cited-publications indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 379-387.
    5. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    6. William Cabos & Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Exploring the Hjif-Index, an Analogue to the H-Like Index for Journal Impact Factors," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-11, April.
    7. Waltman, L. & van Eck, N.J.P., 2009. "A simple alternative to the h-index," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-043-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    8. J. E. Hirsch, 2019. "hα: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 673-686, February.
    9. Frank Havemann & Birger Larsen, 2015. "Bibliometric indicators of young authors in astrophysics: Can later stars be predicted?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1413-1434, February.
    10. Schreiber, Michael, 2013. "How to derive an advantage from the arbitrariness of the g-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 555-561.
    11. J. E. Hirsch, 2010. "An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 741-754, December.
    12. Gagolewski, Marek, 2011. "Bibliometric impact assessment with R and the CITAN package," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 678-692.
    13. Gagolewski, Marek & Mesiar, Radko, 2012. "Aggregating different paper quality measures with a generalized h-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 566-579.
    14. Olga Popova & Dmitry Romanov & Marina Evseeva, 2017. "Modern Assessment Method of Research Outcome Methodological Significance," Journal of Asian Scientific Research, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 7(3), pages 63-70, March.
    15. Alonso, S. & Cabrerizo, F.J. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2009. "h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 273-289.
    16. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    17. Hyeonchae Yang & Woo-Sung Jung, 2015. "A strategic management approach for Korean public research institutes based on bibliometric investigation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1437-1464, July.
    18. Lathabai, Hiran H., 2020. "ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    19. Marcin Kozak & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "A New Family of Cumulative Indexes for Measuring Scientific Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-4, October.
    20. Cabrerizo, F.J. & Alonso, S. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2010. "q2-Index: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 23-28.

    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:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2427-6. 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.