IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i10d10.1007_s11192-024-05131-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

$${\varvec{x}}_{{\varvec{d}}}$$ x d -index and its variants: a set of overall scholarly expertise diversity indices for the research portfolio management of institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Abhirup Nandy

    (Banaras Hindu University)

  • Hiran H. Lathabai

    (Amrita CREATE, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham)

  • Vivek Kumar Singh

    (Banaras Hindu University
    University of Delhi)

Abstract

During last several decades, various indicators and proxies to measure research output and their impact for different units have been proposed. These measurements may be targeted at individuals, institutions, journals, countries etc. Institutional level assessment is one such area that has always been and will remain a key challenge to a multitude of stakeholders. Various international rankings as well as different bibliometric indicators have been explored in the context of institutional assessments, though each of them has certain criticisms associated. Most of the existing indicators, including h-type indicators, mainly focus on research output and/ or citations to the research output. They do not reveal the expertise of institutions in different subject areas, which is crucial to know the research portfolio of an institution. Recently, a set of expertise measures such as x and x(g) indices were introduced to determine the expertise of institutions with respect to a specific discipline/field considering strengths in different finer level thematic areas of that discipline/field. In this work, an adaptation of the x-index, namely the $$x_{d}$$ x d -index is proposed to determine the overall scholarly expertise of an institution considering its publication pattern and strength in different coarse thematic areas. This indicator helps to identify the core expertise areas and the diversity of the research portfolio of the institution. Further, two variants of the indicator, namely field normalized indicator or $$x_{d}$$ x d (FN)-index and fractional indicator $$x_{d} \left( f \right)$$ x d f -index are also introduced to address the effect of field bias and collaborations on the computation of the expertise diversity. The framework can determine the most suitable version of the indicator to use for research portfolio management with the help of correlation analysis. These indicators and the associated framework are demonstrated on a dataset of 136 institutions. Upon rank correlation analysis, no significant difference is noticed between $$x_{d}$$ x d and its variants computed using different publication counting, in this particular dataset, making $$x_{d}$$ x d the most suitable indicator in this case. The possibilities offered by the framework for effective management of the research portfolio of an institution by expanding its diversity and its ability to aid national level policymakers for the effective management of scholarly ecosystem of the country is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Abhirup Nandy & Hiran H. Lathabai & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2024. "$${\varvec{x}}_{{\varvec{d}}}$$ x d -index and its variants: a set of overall scholarly expertise diversity indices for the research portfolio management of institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 5937-5962, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05131-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05131-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05131-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/s11192-024-05131-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. 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. Loet Leydesdorff & Caroline S. Wagner & Lutz Bornmann, 2018. "Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—A tribute to Eugene Garfield," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 567-592, February.
    3. Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran & Manoj Changat, 2017. "Contextual productivity assessment of authors and journals: a network scientometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 711-737, February.
    4. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    5. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2011. "How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(2), pages 217-229, February.
    7. J Sylvan Katz, 2000. "Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 23-36, February.
    8. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    9. Ismael Rafols & Martin Meyer, 2010. "Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 263-287, February.
    10. Gangan Prathap, 2010. "Is there a place for a mock h-index?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 153-165, July.
    11. Gangan Prathap, 2020. "Letter to the editor: Journal indicators from a dimensionality perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1259-1265, February.
    12. Haunschild, Robin & Daniels, Angela D. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2022. "Scores of a specific field-normalized indicator calculated with different approaches of field-categorization: Are the scores different or similar?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    13. Hiran H. Lathabai & Abhirup Nandy & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2021. "x-index: Identifying core competency and thematic research strengths of institutions using an NLP and network based ranking framework," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9557-9583, December.
    14. Susan George & Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran & Manoj Changat, 2020. "A framework towards bias-free contextual productivity assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 127-157, January.
    15. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2947 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline S. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2019. "Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 255-269.
    17. Wagner, Caroline S. & Roessner, J. David & Bobb, Kamau & Klein, Julie Thompson & Boyack, Kevin W. & Keyton, Joann & Rafols, Ismael & Börner, Katy, 2011. "Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 14-26.
    18. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    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. Yi Bu & Mengyang Li & Weiye Gu & Win‐bin Huang, 2021. "Topic diversity: A discipline scheme‐free diversity measurement for journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(5), pages 523-539, May.
    2. Giulio Giacomo Cantone, 2024. "How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4937-4982, August.
    3. Hiran H. Lathabai & Abhirup Nandy & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2021. "x-index: Identifying core competency and thematic research strengths of institutions using an NLP and network based ranking framework," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9557-9583, December.
    4. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Cristian Mejia & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7477-7502, September.
    5. Jingjing Ren & Fang Wang & Minglu Li, 2023. "Dynamics and characteristics of interdisciplinary research in scientific breakthroughs: case studies of Nobel-winning research in the past 120 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4383-4419, August.
    6. Ronald Rousseau, 2018. "The repeat rate: from Hirschman to Stirling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 645-653, July.
    7. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    8. Xin Liu & Yi Bu & Ming Li & Jiang Li, 2024. "Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(1), pages 59-78, January.
    9. Kim, Hyeyoung & Park, Hyelin & Song, Min, 2022. "Developing a topic-driven method for interdisciplinarity analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    10. Hamid R. Jamali & Ghasem Azadi-Ahmadabadi & Saeid Asadi, 2018. "Interdisciplinary relations of converging technologies: Nano–Bio–Info–Cogno (NBIC)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1055-1073, August.
    11. Zhesi Shen & Liying Yang & Zengru Di & Jinshan Wu, 2019. "Large enough sample size to rank two groups of data reliably according to their means," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 653-671, February.
    12. Hongyu Zhou & Raf Guns & Tim C. E. Engels, 2022. "Are social sciences becoming more interdisciplinary? Evidence from publications 1960–2014," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(9), pages 1201-1221, September.
    13. Loet Leydesdorff, 2018. "Diversity and interdisciplinarity: how can one distinguish and recombine disparity, variety, and balance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2113-2121, September.
    14. Chen, Shiji & Qiu, Junping & Arsenault, Clément & Larivière, Vincent, 2021. "Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    15. Jielan Ding & Zhesi Shen & Per Ahlgren & Tobias Jeppsson & David Minguillo & Johan Lyhagen, 2021. "The link between ethnic diversity and scientific impact: the mediating effect of novelty and audience diversity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7759-7810, September.
    16. Keungoui Kim & Dieter F. Kogler & Sira Maliphol, 2024. "Identifying interdisciplinary emergence in the science of science: combination of network analysis and BERTopic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. Chao Yu & Chuhan Wang & Tongyang Zhang & Yi Bu & Jian Xu, 2024. "Analyzing research diversity of scholars based on multi-dimensional calculation of knowledge entities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 7329-7358, November.
    18. Lin Zhang & Beibei Sun & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Lixin Chen & Ying Huang, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: on the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 271-291, October.
    19. Liang Hu & Win-bin Huang & Yi Bu, 2024. "Interdisciplinary research attracts greater attention from policy documents: evidence from COVID-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Antonoyiannakis, Manolis, 2018. "Impact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why citation averages are scale dependent," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1072-1088.

    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:129:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05131-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.