Multivariate approach to classify research institutes according to their outputs: the case of the CSIC’s institutes

Ortega, José Luis, López-Romero, Elena and Fernández, Inés Multivariate approach to classify research institutes according to their outputs: the case of the CSIC’s institutes., 2011 [Preprint]

[thumbnail of Clasificación de Institutos_preprint.pdf] PDF
Clasificación de Institutos_preprint.pdf
Download (256kB)

English abstract

This paper attempts to build a classification model according to the research products created by those institutes and hence to design specific evaluation processes. Several scientific input/output indicators belonging to 109 research institutes from the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) were selected. A multidimensional approach was proposed to resume these indicators in various components. A clustering analysis was used to classify the institutes according to their scores with those components (principal component analysis). Moreover, the validity of the a priori classification was tested and the most discriminant variables were detected (linear discriminant analysis). Results show that there are three types of institutes according to their research outputs: Humanistic, Scientific and Technological. It is argue that these differences oblige to design more precise assessment exercises which focus on the particular results of each type of institute. We conclude that this method permits to build more precise research assessment exercises which consider the varied nature of the scientific activity.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: Scientometrics, Principal Component Analysis, Linear Discriminant Analysis, research centres classification
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information.
Depositing user: José Luis Ortega Priego
Date deposited: 18 Feb 2011
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:18
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/15364

References

Shapira, P., & Kuhlmann, S. (2003). Learning for science and technology policy evaluation. In: P. Shapira & S. Kuhlmann (eds.). Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: experiences from the United States and Europe. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham

Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures, PLoS One, 4(6), e6022. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.

Chen, Y., & Liu, N. C. (2006). A first approach to the classification of the top 500 world universities by their disciplinary characteristics using scientometrics, Scientometrics, 68(1): 135-150

Coccia. M. (2004). Models for measuring the research performance and identifying the productivity of public research institutes, R&D Management, 34(3): 267–280

Coccia. M. (2005). Scientometric model for the assessment of the scientific research performance within the public institutes, Scientometrics, 65(3): 97–311.

Cunningham, S. J., & Bocock. D. (1995). Obsolescence of computing literature, Scientometrics, 34(2): 255-262

Fisher, R. A. (1936). The Use of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems, Annals of Eugenics, 7: 179–188.

Giese, E. (1990). Ranking of Universities in the FRG, Scientometrics, 19(5-6): 363-375

Glänzel, W., & Schubert. A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes, Scientometrics, 56(3):357-367

Harris, G., & Kaine, G. (1994). The determinants of research performance: a study of Australian university economists, Higher Education, 27: 191-201.

Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into Principal Components, Journal of Educational Psychology, 24: 417-520.

Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis, Psychometrika, 23: 187-200

Katz, J. S. (1999). The Self-similar science system, Research Policy, 28(5): 501-517

Lin, J. S., Tien, S. W., Chen, T. S., Kao, Y. H., Lin, C. C., & Chiu, Y. H. (2007). Referential hierarchical clustering algorithm based upon principal component analysis and genetic algorithm. In: A. Xu, H. Zhu, S. Y. Chen, et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Conference on WSEAS International Conference on Applied Computer Science Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA, 138-142.

Line, M. B. (1970). The ‘half-life’ of periodical literature: apparent and real obsolescence, Journal of Documentation, 26(1): 46-54

Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research, Scientometrics, 36(3): 343-362

Martinez, A. M., & Kak, A. C. (2001). PCA versus LDA, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 23(2): 228–233

Michel, A. G., Jeandenans, C. (1993). Multiconformational investigations of polypeptidic structures, using clustering methods and principal components analysis, Computers & Chemistry, 17(1): 49-59

Modlin, I.M., Gustafsson, B.I., Drozdov, I., Nadler, B., Pfranger, R., & Kidd, M. (2009). Principal Component Analysis, Hierarchical Clustering, and Decision Tree Assessment of Plasma mRNA and Hormone Levels as an Early Detection Strategy for Small Intestinal Neuroendocrine (Carcinoid) Tumors. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 16(2):487-498

Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space, Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, 2 (11): 559-572.

Polanco, X., François, C., & Keim, J. P. (1998). Artificial neural network technology for the classification and cartography of scientific and technical information, Scientometrics, 41(1–2): 69–82.

Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators, Scientometrics, 36(3): 311-324

Shapira, P., & Kuhlmann, S. (2003). Learning for science and technology policy evaluation. In: P. Shapira & S. Kuhlmann (eds.). Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: experiences from the United States and Europe. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham

Sneath, P. H. A., & Sokal, R. R. (1973). Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman: San Francisco

Skoie, H. (1999). Bibliometrics—some warnings from the north, Scientometrics, 45(3):433-437

Tagarelli, A., Trubitsyna, I., & Greco, S. (2004). Combining linear programming and clustering techniques for the classification of research centers, The European Journal on Artificial Intelligence, AI Communications, 17(3):111-122

Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2008). A structural analysis of publication profiles for the classification of European research institutes, Scientometrics, 74(2): 223-236

Tikoria, J., Banwet, D. K., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2009). Performance measurement of national R&D organisations using analytic hierarchy process: a case of India, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(3): 276-300

Zhou, F., Guo, H. C., Ho, Y. H., & Wu, C. Z. (2007). Scientometric analysis of geostatistics using multivariate methods, Scientometrics, 73(3): 265-279

Van Raan, A. F. J., (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods, Scientometrics, 62(1): 133-143


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS