Relationship of the disruption indicator with other bibliometric indicators

Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. and De-Moya-Anegón, Félix Relationship of the disruption indicator with other bibliometric indicators. Infonomy, 2024, vol. 2, n. 1. [Journal article (Unpaginated)]

[img]
Preview
 Text
Guerrero-De-Moya-Relationship-the-disruption.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (915kB) | Preview

English abstract

An indicator to measure disruption has recently been proposed (Funk & Owen-Smith, 2017; Wu, Wang, & Evans, 2019) which has given rise to a large number of variants (Bornmann et al., 2020). In this work we are going to focus on the original indicator DI and the one that seems to have a better performance DI5 (Bornmann and Tekles, 2021; Bittmann et al., 2021) carrying out a large-scale study comparing the scores assigned to each paper. with other bibliometric indicators. The result is that the papers to which the bibliometric indicators assign more value do not obtain better scores. Reviews and short surveys have higher scores than articles and conference papers. Excellent papers have worse scores than non-excellent ones. Works with international collaboration obtain worse values than those without it. Works published in Q1 journals have worse scores than those published in journals of other quartiles. And there is also a small negative correlation with the normalized impact and with the technological impact.

Item type: Journal article (Unpaginated)
Keywords: Scientometrics; Bibliometrics; Bibliometric indicators; Disruption indices; scientific impact; Excel-lence; Technological impact.
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AB. Information theory and library theory.
B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
B. Information use and sociology of information > BC. Information in society.
Depositing user: Tomàs Baiget
Date deposited: 28 Feb 2024 08:21
Last modified: 28 Feb 2024 08:21
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/45622

References

Arthur, W. B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research policy, 36(2), 274-287.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.005

Bittmann, F.; Tekles, A.; Bornmann, L. (2021). Applied usage and performance of sta-tistical matching in bibliometrics: The comparison of milestone and regular papers with multiple measurements of disruptiveness as an empirical example. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(4), 1246-1270.

https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00158

Bornmann, L.; Devarakonda, S.; Tekles, A.; Chacko, G. (2019). Disruptive papers pub-lished in Scientometrics: meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disrup-tion index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019). Scientometrics, 123, 1149–1155 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03406-8

Bornmann, L.; Devarakonda, S.; Tekles, A.; Chacko, G. (2020). Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with as-sessments by peers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1242-1259.

https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00068

Bornmann, Lutz; Moya-Anegón, Félix; Leydesdorff, Loet (2012). “The new excellence indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011”. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 333–335.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.006

Bornmann, L.; Tekles, A. (2019a). Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics. Scien-tometrics, 120, 331–336.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03113-z

Bornmann, L.; Tekles, A. (2019b). Disruption index depends on length of citation win-dow. Profesional de la información, 28(2).

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.mar.07

Bornmann, L.; Tekles, A. (2021). Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts. Journal of In-formetrics, 15(3), 101159.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101159

Funk, R. J.; Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management science, 63(3), 791-817.

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366

Guerrero-Bote, V. P.; Moed, H. F.; Moya-Anegon, F. (2021). New indicators of the technological impact of scientific production. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(4), 36–61.

https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0028

Leydesdorff, L.; Tekles, A.; Bornmann, L. (2021). A proposal to revise the disruption indicator. Profesional de la información, 30(1).

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.ene.21

Park, M.; Leahey, E.; Funk, R. J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disrup-tive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138-144.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x

Rehn, Catharina; Kronman, Ulf (2008). Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Insti-tutet. Karolinska Institutet University Library. Version 1.05.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1480.9447

Schumpeter, J. A. (2011). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.

Tushman, M. L.; Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative science quarterly, 31, 439-465. PART III.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2392832

Wu, L.; Wang, D.; Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378-382.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9


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