IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i8d10.1007_s11192-023-04756-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Researcher capacity estimation based on the Q model: a generalized linear mixed model perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Boris Forthmann

    (University of Münster)

Abstract

Chance models of scientific creative productivity allow estimation of researcher capacity. One prominent such model is the Q model in which the impact of a scholarly work is modeled as a multiplicative function of researcher capacity and a potential impact (i.e., luck) parameter. Previous work estimated researcher capacity based on an approximation of the Q parameter. In this work, however, I outline how the Q model can be estimated within the framework of generalized linear mixed models. This way estimates of researcher capacity (and all other parameters of the Q model) are readily available and obtained by standard statistical software packages. Usage of such software further allows comparing different distributional assumptions and calculation of reliability of the Q parameter (i.e., researcher capacity). This is illustrated for a large dataset of multidisciplinary scientists (N = 20,296). The Poisson Q model was found to have negligibly better predictive accuracy than the original normal Q model. Reliability estimates revealed excellent reliability of Q estimates with conditional reliability being mostly in acceptable ranges. Reliability of Q parameter estimates further depended heavily on the number of publications of a scientist with reliability increasing with the number of papers. The future and limitations of the Q model in the context of researcher capacity estimation are thoroughly discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Boris Forthmann, 2023. "Researcher capacity estimation based on the Q model: a generalized linear mixed model perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4753-4764, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04756-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04756-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04756-9
    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/s11192-023-04756-9?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. James Hartley, 2017. "Authors and their citations: a point of view," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 1081-1084, February.
    2. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2019. "How to consider fractional counting and field normalization in the statistical modeling of bibliometric data: A multilevel Poisson regression approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 643-657.
    3. Lu Liu & Yang Wang & Roberta Sinatra & C. Lee Giles & Chaoming Song & Dashun Wang, 2018. "Hot streaks in artistic, cultural, and scientific careers," Nature, Nature, vol. 559(7714), pages 396-399, July.
    4. Pedro Alvarez & Antonio Pulgarín, 1996. "The Rasch model. Measuring the impact of scientific journals: Analytical chemistry," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(6), pages 458-467, June.
    5. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2018. "The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher’s performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1282-1295.
    6. Boris Forthmann & Philipp Doebler, 2021. "Reliability of researcher capacity estimates and count data dispersion: a comparison of Poisson, negative binomial, and Conway-Maxwell-Poisson models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3337-3354, April.
    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. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    2. Yu, Shuo & Alqahtani, Fayez & Tolba, Amr & Lee, Ivan & Jia, Tao & Xia, Feng, 2022. "Collaborative Team Recognition: A Core Plus Extension Structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    3. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2018. "The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher’s performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1282-1295.
    4. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    5. Wen Lou & Jiangen He & Lingxin Zhang & Zhijie Zhu & Yongjun Zhu, 2023. "Support behind the scenes: the relationship between acknowledgement, coauthor, and citation in Nobel articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5767-5790, October.
    6. Yue Wang & Ning Li & Bin Zhang & Qian Huang & Jian Wu & Yang Wang, 2023. "The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1801-1823, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Yu, Xiaoyao & Szymanski, Boleslaw K. & Jia, Tao, 2021. "Become a better you: Correlation between the change of research direction and the change of scientific performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    9. Krzysztof Rusek & Agnieszka Kleszcz & Albert Cabellos-Aparicio, 2023. "Bayesian inference of spatial and temporal relations in AI patents for EU countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3313-3335, June.
    10. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.
    11. Vitalis, Kyriacos & Stefanidis, Dimosthenis & Pallis, George & Dikaiakos, Marios & Nicolaou, Nicos & Nicolaides, Christos, 2024. "Quantifying the impact of online social networks on the success of entrepreneurs," OSF Preprints x6vda, Center for Open Science.
    12. Boris Forthmann & Mark A. Runco, 2020. "An Empirical Test of the Inter-Relationships between Various Bibliometric Creative Scholarship Indicators," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Zhu, Wanying & Jin, Ching & Ma, Yifang & Xu, Cong, 2023. "Earlier recognition of scientific excellence enhances future achievements and promotes persistence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    14. Petersen, Alexander M. & Penner, Orion, 2020. "Renormalizing individual performance metrics for cultural heritage management of sports records," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    15. Aliakbar Akbaritabar & Andrés F. Castro Torres & Vincent Larivière, 2023. "A global perspective on the social structure of science," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2023-029, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    16. Liu, Meijun & Jaiswal, Ajay & Bu, Yi & Min, Chao & Yang, Sijie & Liu, Zhibo & Acuña, Daniel & Ding, Ying, 2022. "Team formation and team impact: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    17. Zhang, Yang & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Havlin, Shlomo, 2024. "Delayed citation impact of interdisciplinary research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    18. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2020. "Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    19. Dosso, Dennis & Silvello, Gianmaria, 2020. "Data credit distribution: A new method to estimate databases impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    20. Yu, Dejian & Pan, Tianxing, 2021. "Tracing the main path of interdisciplinary research considering citation preference: A case from blockchain domain," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Q model; Researcher capacity; Generalized linear mixed model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General

    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:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04756-9. 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.