Understanding Research Productivity in the Realm of Evaluative Scientometrics

Pal, Jiban K. and Sarkar, Soumitra Understanding Research Productivity in the Realm of Evaluative Scientometrics. Annals of Library and Information Studies (ISSN:0972-5423), 2020, vol. 67, n. 1, pp. 67-69. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of understanding research productivity.pdf]
Preview
 Text
understanding research productivity.pdf
Download (31kB) | Preview

English abstract

Selecting appropriate metrics and translate into the practical situation through empirical design is a cumbersome task in measuring the research productivity. A single indicator cannot work well in different situations, but selecting the'most suitable'one from dozens of indicators is very confusing. Nevertheless, establishing benchmarks in research evaluation and implementing all-factor productivity is almost impossible. Understanding research productivity is, therefore, a quintessential need for performance evaluations in the realm of evaluative scientometrics. Evaluative scientometrics endorses the measures that emerge during the decision-making process through relevant metrics and indicators expressing the organizational dynamics. Evaluation processes governed by counting, weighting, normalizing, and then comparing seem trustworthy.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Evaluative scientometrics; Research productivity; Institutional performance; Research evaluation
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
B. Information use and sociology of information > BC. Information in society.
Depositing user: Dr. Jiban K. Pal
Date deposited: 08 Feb 2021 17:21
Last modified: 08 Feb 2021 17:21
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/41739

References

Abramo G and D'Angelo C A, How do you define and measure research productivity?, Scientometrics, 101 (2) (2014) 1129-1144.

Abramo G, Cicero T and D'Angelo C A, A sensitivity analysis of researchers’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation, Journal of Informetrics, 6 (2) (2012) 192-201.

Allison P D and Stewhart J A, Productivity differences among scientists: evidence for accumulative advantage, American Sociological Review, 39 (4)(1974) 596-606.

Butler L, Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach, Science and Public Policy, 34 (8) (2007) 565-574.

Fincher C, The assessment of institutional productivity, Research in Higher Education, 19 (3) (1983) 381-384.

Fox M F, Publication productivity among scientists: a critical review, Social Studies of Science, 13 (2) (1983) 285-305.

Garfield E, Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?, Scientometrics, 1 (4) (1979) 359-375.

Nederhof A J, Van Leeuwen T N and Clancy P, Calibration of bibliometric indicators in space exploration research: a comparison of citation impact measurement of the space and ground-based life and physical sciences, Research Evaluation, 21 (1) (2012) 79-85.

NIRF-MHRD, Government of India, National Institutional Ranking Framework: parameters, (2015). Retrieved from:https://www.nirfindia.org/Parameter (accessed on 12 October 2019).

Pal J K, Scientometric dimensions of cryptographic research, Scientometrics, 105 (1) (2015) 179-202.

Pratap G, Quantity, quality, and consistency as bibliometric indicators (Letter to the editor), Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65 (1) (2014) 214.

Pratap G, Quasity, when quantity has a quality all of its own: toward a theory of performance, Scientometrics, 88 (2) (2011) 555-562.

Rajput A S D, India aims for national policy on scientific social responsibility, Nature, 574 (634) (26 October 2019). DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03294

Wang J, Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation, Scientometrics, 94 (3) (2013) 851-872.


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