A metric for academic performance applied to australian universities 2001-2004

Sandstrom, Ulf and Sandstrom, Erik A metric for academic performance applied to australian universities 2001-2004., 2007 [Preprint]


Download (180kB) | Preview

English abstract

In a series of papers, published during second half of the 1980s, the Budapest group (Braun, Glänzel, Telcs and Schubert) proposed that bibliometric distributions are to be characterized as Waring distributions. We use their methodology in order to establish a reference value for academic production within macro classes. From this we develop a combined performance model for academic research and apply the model to Australian research. This model take advantage of, first, field normalized publication rates (the productivity dimension) and, second, field normalized citation rates (the quality dimension). Based on ISI-data the performance of Australian universities is depicted in a more resource-efficient way than competing models.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: performance based funding; formula-based funding, generalized waring distributions; bibliometrics
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Ulf Sandstrom
Date deposited: 06 Nov 2007
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:09
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/10577


Allen report (2005) Measuring the impact of publicly funded research. The Allen Consulting Group. Report to the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. [www.dest.gov.au].

Braun T; Glänzel W & Schubert A (1990) Publication productivity: from frequency distributions to scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science 16:37–44.

Braun T; Glänzel W (1990), United Germany: The New Scientific Superpower? Scientometrics 19 (5-6):513 521.

Butler L; Henadeera K (2007) Is there a role for novel citation measures for the social sciences and humanities in a national research assessment exercise? Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the ISSI, Madrid June 25-27, 2007. Vol 1, pp. 170-178.

Butler L; Visser M (2006) Exteding citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics 66(2):327–343.

Butler L (2003) Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications – the effects of funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy 32(1):143-156.

Cole S (1992) Making Science: between nature and society. Harvard Univ. Press.

DEST (2007) Research quality Framework: assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia. July 2007 [www.dest.gov.au]

Glänzel W; Schubert A (1985) Price distribution: an exact formulation of Price’s ´square root law´. Scientometrics 7:211-219.

Glänzel W; Schubert A (2003) A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics 56:257–367.

Glänzel W (1996) The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics 35:167–176.

Glänzel W; Schubert A & Telcs A (1984) Characterization by Truncated Moments and its Application to Pearson-Type Distributions. Zeitschrift für Warscheinlichtkeitstheorie und verwandted Gebiete, 66:173-183. (Correction: Ibid. 74:317 (1987).

Hemmings B; Rushbrook P; Smith, E (2007) Academics’ views on publishing refereed works: A content analysis. Higher Education, Volume 54, Number 2, August, pp. 307-332.

Hicks, D; Katz, JS (1997) The changing shape of British industrial research. Brighton: SPRU (STEEP Special Reports; No. 6).

Irwin JO (1963) The place of mathematics in medical and biological sciences. J R Statistic Soc. A. 126, 1–44.

Klavans R; Boyack KW (2006) Quantitative evaluation of large maps of science. Scientometrics 68(3):475-499.

Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16:317-323.

Lundberg J (2007) Lifting the crown – citation z score. Journal of Informetrics 1:145–154.

Moed, H.F. (2005) Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.

Price DDS (1963) Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia Univ Press.

Price DDS (1976) A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. JASIS 27:292–306.

Sandström U; Hällsten M (2008) Persistent Nepotism in Peer Review. Scientometrics Vol. 74, No. 2 (forthcoming)

Sandström U; Sandström E (2007) The mobility of research quality. Paper presented at workshop on CV studies in Madrid, June 28, 2007. [www.forskningspolitik.se/studier.asp].

Sandström U (2007) Svensk statsvetenskap i bibliometrisk belysning [Swedish political science: a bibliometric study]. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift 2007 (forthcoming).

Sandström U.; Hällsten M. (2007) Gender, Funding Diversity and Quality of Research. Paper to be presented at the ISSI conference in Madrid June 25–28, 2007.

Schubert A; Braun T (1996) Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 36:311–324.

Schubert A; Glänzel W (1984) A dynamic look at a class of skew distributions: a model with scientometric applications. Scientometrics 3:149–167.

Seglen P (1992) The skewness of science. JASIS 43(9):628-638.

Seglen P (1997) Why the impact factor should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal Feb 15, pp 498-502.

Telcs A; Glänzel W & Shubert A (1985) Characterization and statistical test using truncated expectations for a class of skew distributions. Mathematical Social Sciences 10:169–178.

Travis GDL, Collins HM (1991) New light on old boys – cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer-review system. Science, Technology & Human Values 16 (3): 322-341.

Van Raan A.F.J. (2004) Measuring Science. Capita Selecta of Current Main Issues. In: H.F. Moed, W, Glänzel and U.Schmoch, editors: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, p.19-50

Van Raan A.F.J. (2005), Performance-related differences of bibliometric statistical properties of research groups: cumulative advantages and hierarchically layered networks (http://www.cwts.nl/TvR/TvRpublications.html)

Van Raan A.F.J. (2006), Statistical Properties of Bibliometric Indicators: Research Group Indicator Distributions and Correlations, JASIST, 57 (3): 408-430

Xie Y; Shauman KA (1998) Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle, American Sociological Review 63 (6): 847-870.


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item