Table 1 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
Content may be subject to copyright.
List of 36 medical subjects included in the evaluation along with the estimated α s and β s (as obtained from data on publications of 219 European Academic Medical Institutions within 2002-2006) for the calculation of the modified impact index ( where h: h-index, N: number of publications)
Source publication
The evaluation of academic research performance is nowadays a priority issue. Bibliometric indicators such as the number of publications, total citation counts and h-index are an indispensable tool in this task but their inherent association with the size of the research output may result in rewarding high production when evaluating institutions of...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... Academic Medical Institutions located in 16 Euro- pean countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) were identified from the database of medical schools provided by the Institute for International Medi- cal Education [6]. Once the final list of 219 institutions was compiled, all publications affiliated to the corre- sponding universities (excluding meeting abstracts) and classified into any of the 36 pre-specified medical subjects (Table 1) were identified using Thomson Scientific Web of Science (WoS). The number of papers published during [2002][2003][2004][2005][2006] and the corresponding h-index have been recorded for each institution. ...
Context 2
... used the database with the number of publications and corresponding h-indices per subfield. Plots similar to Figure 1 were constructed for each one of the 36 medical fields and the parameters α and β were estimated (Table 1). These parameters can be used to estimate the field-spe- cific MII of an institution or a department. ...
Similar publications
In medical curricula, considerable effort is put into scientific education and research training. The output of these efforts, however, is not known.
To assess the number of students who published at least one scientific paper during the course of their medical studies.
Names and initials of all students who received their medical degree in 2006 or...
Citations
... Individual factors include the researcher's gender, age, academic rank, salary, years of experience, teaching load, and confidence in writing research works. Institutional factors include the allocation of research funds, the size of the institution, the presence of research groups, institutional and departmental support, access to journals, the availability of research facilities, and the availability of information technology [7][8][9]. ...
Background
Researchers in universities and academic institutions must be in a leading position in generating research evidence to inform and direct national policies and strategies, improve service delivery, and achieve the main objectives. This study aimed to determine the factors that promote or hinder research productivity and quality among university academics in Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted on 949 university academics from all public universities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The authors developed a questionnaire that included sociodemographic data, challenges, satisfaction, and motivation for conducting research. Data were collected using a Google form. Frequencies, percentages, and the Chi-square test were used to analyze the data.
Results
Most university academics (94.6%) believed that research was part of their job, but only 51.6% were satisfied with their role as academic researchers. The lack of financial motivation was the main reason for dissatisfaction, while the main incentive to conduct research was the passion for science. Around 21% of the university academics had not published any research, while 53.1% published 1–5 articles. Half of the participants (49.7%) lacked training in writing research proposals, and the majority (86.1%) have not applied for international grants. Approximately half of university academics (46.9%) shared their research findings with stakeholders, and the primary method was by sharing their published papers (59.4%), followed by seminars (42.2%). One of the important challenges in conducting research was the lack of funding (62.8%).
Conclusions
The academics at universities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq are passionate about their role as researchers, but face many challenges in conducting effective research. A strategic plan is needed to provide an encouraging environment for university academics regarding infrastructure, financial, and technical support. More studies are needed to identify the root factors of academic staff needs and challenges.
... The dependency of the h-index at the level of units which size is identified by the number of publications was discussed already over decade ago [10,11] in the context of journals [12], institutions [13,14], disciplines [15] or countries [16,17]. In each case, the growth of h-index with number of publications N was found to be: ...
... The quantity β > 0 was found to be similar for different levels of aggregations (different units such as journals, institutions, etc.) [13,15,14,12]. The reasons for such universality have been widely discussed, with the presumption that the distribution of citations falls in the family of Paretian distributions with power-law exponent α, leading to an estimate β ≈ 1 1+α , see [10,18]. ...
... • by considering independent research units of disparate sizes [14,19]. ...
The size-dependent nature of the so-called group or departmental h-index is reconsidered in this paper. While the influence of unit size on such collective measures was already demonstrated a decade ago, institutional ratings based on this metric can still be found and still impact on the reputations and funding of many research institutions. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the fallacy of this approach to collective research-quality assessment in a simple way, focusing on the h-index in its original form. We show that randomly reshuffling real scientometric data (varying numbers of citations) amongst institutions of varying size, while maintaining the volume of their research outputs, has little effect on their departmental h-index. This suggests that the relative position in ratings based on the collective h-index is determined not only by quality (impact) of particular research outputs but by their volume. Therefore, the application of the collective h-index in its original form is disputable as a basement for comparison at aggregated levels such as to research groups, institutions or journals. We suggest a possible remedy for this failing which is implementable in a manner that is as simple and understandable as the h-index itself.
... Варто зауважити, що груповий індекс Гірша може використовуватися для аналізу діяльності окремих дослідницьких груп чи установ, проте цей інструментарій потребує модифікації, коли мова йде про порівняння між собою груп чи установ різного розміру, див. [21], [22]. У Табл. 3 також приведено значення усіх вищезгаданих показників, але вже для випадку, коли не враховуються статті великих колективів співавторів. ...
One of the features of modern science is the formation of stable large collaborations of researchers working together within the projects that require the concentration of huge financial and human resources. Results of such common work are published in scientific papers by large co-authorship teams that include sometimes thousands of names. The goal of this work is to study the influence of such publications on the values of scientometric indicators calculated for individuals, research groups and science of Ukraine in general. Bibliometric data related to Ukraine, some academic institutions and selected individual researchers were collected from Scopus database and used for our study. It is demonstrated that while the relative share of publications by collective authors is comparatively small, their presence in a general pool can lead to statistically significant effects. The obtained results clearly show that traditional quantitative approaches for research assessment should be changed in order to take into account this phenomenon. Keywords: collective authorship, scientometrics, group science, Ukraine.
... Розподіл за кількістю співавторів для цієї, чи не найбільшої інституції НАН України доволі подібний до залежності на рис. 4. У табл. 3 наведено деякі з базових показників, які з тією чи іншою метою традиційно розраховують для наукової установи, зокрема середньорічну кількість публікацій та цитувань, середню кількість цитувань на одну публікацію, число та/або відсоток нецитованих робіт, груповий індекс Гірша [20]. Варто зауважити, що груповий індекс Гірша можна використовувати для аналізу діяльності окремих дослідницьких груп чи установ, проте цей інструментарій потребує модифікації, якщо йдеться про порівняння груп чи установ різного розміру [21,22] також значення всіх вищезгаданих показників для випадку, коли не враховуються статті великих колективів співавторів. Як бачимо з табл. ...
КОЛЕКТИВНЕ АВТОРСТВО В УКРАЇНСЬКІЙ НАУЦІ: МАРГІНАЛЬНИЙ ЕФЕКТ ЧИ НОВЕ ЯВИЩЕ?
Однією з ознак сучасної науки стало формування великих стійких колаборацій науковців, які працюють в рамках проектів, що вимагають концентрації значних матеріальних і людських ресурсів. Результати їхніх досліджень публікуються за авторства колективів, що можуть включати до кількох тисяч імен. Метою нашої роботи є дослідити вплив присутності таких статей на наукоментричні індикатори публікаційної діяльності окремих вчених, дослідницьких центрів та усього сегменту української науки. Проведено аналіз бібліометричних даних, що отримані з наукометричної бази Scopus. Показано, що, попри незначну відносну частку публікацій за авторством великих колективів, їхній вплив на наукометричні показники може бути статистично значимим. Отримані результати свідчать про необхідність внесення змін в усталені наукометричні методики та підходи для адекватного врахування цього явища.
Ключові слова: колективний автор, наукометрія, групова наука, Україна
... Licenciamiento Institucional (18) Licenciamiento Medicina ( Medición del impacto de la producción científica. Existen varios indicadores de impacto basados en citas (29)(30)(31) , para el licenciamiento institucional se usó el impacto normalizado, sin embargo, este dato es poco estable cuando el número de artículos es menor a 100 (25) , como sucede en la mayoría de universidades peruanas. Por ello, la decisión de usar el Índice H del periodo evaluado es acertada. ...
The new university law 30220 of 2014 introduced the mandatory institutional licensing of all Peruvian universities by the National Superintendence of Higher University Education (SUNEDU, in Spanish). The first undergraduate program to go through this process will be medicine. The licensing of medical programs is necessary to ensure that the conditions in which the program is taught in Peru are adequate, with a high probability of closing some medical schools. Once a medical school has demonstrated that it meets the basic conditions of quality, a qualitative and quantitative evaluation is carried out that includes three criteria: scientific production in the Web of Science, impact measured through the H index, and results of the national medical exam, to determine the years of licensing. This article evaluates the quantitative indicators linked to research using Web of Science and Scopus, in addition to making technical and methodological revisions of them. Suggestions for the other indicators are also covered by this article.
... Licenciamiento Institucional (18) Licenciamiento Medicina ( Medición del impacto de la producción científica. Existen varios indicadores de impacto basados en citas (29)(30)(31) , para el licenciamiento institucional se usó el impacto normalizado, sin embargo, este dato es poco estable cuando el número de artículos es menor a 100 (25) , como sucede en la mayoría de universidades peruanas. Por ello, la decisión de usar el Índice H del periodo evaluado es acertada. ...
The new university law 30220 of 2014 introduced the mandatory institutional licensing of all Peruvian universities by the National Superintendence of Higher University Education (SUNEDU, in Spanish). The first undergraduate program to go through this process will be medicine. The licensing of medical programs is necessary to ensure that the conditions in which the program is taught in Peru are adequate, with a high probability of closing some medical schools. Once a medical school has demonstrated that it meets the basic conditions of quality, a qualitative and quantitative evaluation is carried out that includes three criteria: scientific production in the Web of Science, impact measured through the H index, and results of the national medical exam, to determine the years of licensing. This article evaluates the quantitative indicators linked to research using Web of Science and Scopus, in addition to making technical and methodological revisions of them. Suggestions for the other indicators are also covered by this article.
... 29,30 It is acknowledged that citation rates are indicative of the academic impact and rank 22,29 but tend to favor larger institutions. 31 Furthermore, overcitation, biased citing, audience size, and biased data are also recognized limitations. 32 ...
Background
The purpose of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis of orthopaedic academic output in the United States.
Methods
Publications based on city and state origin, corrected for population size, median household income, total number of surgeons, and the number of various subspecialties were evaluated. The 15 highest-ranked orthopaedic journals were audited from 2010 to 2014 and then subdivided into anatomic regions and 14 subspecialties.
Results
A total of 8,100 articles were published during the study period. Most originated from New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Minnesota. New York published the greatest number by city, followed by Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, and Rochester. When adjusted for the number of publications per city, surgeons per population, publications per surgeon population, publications per population, and publications per median income per capita, Vail and New York led in two and Stanford in one of the metrics.
Conclusions
New York was the leader for the total publications, greatest activity within subspecialties, and publications per surgeon/population and per median income/capita. Vail was the leader for publications/surgeon and population. The top four cities of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago were responsible for 28% of the academic output over the 5-year study period.
... Through publication, scholars keep abreast of their field, verify information, obtain critical response to their work and redirect research interest (OMeara and Braskamp, 2005). Faculty publishing productivity is often used as an index of departmental and institutional prestige, and is strongly associated with individual (Sax et al., 2002;Warlick and Vaughan, 2007), organizational (Sypsa and Hatzakis, 2009) and environmental factors (Haines et al., 2010). ...
This descriptive cross-sectional survey examined faculty publication productivity at Jigjiga University, Ethiopia. It, specifically, aimed at exploring the factors and barriers that may influence publication productivity among academic staffs while also comparing variations across academic disciplines. The survey employed self-administered questionnaire distributed to 120 faculties randomly selected from nine academic disciplines during February to April 2016. This observation indicated that only 38.3% of the academic faculty members have published a research work since joining Jigjiga University. Publication of journal articles was the predominant type of publication outlet (58.7%) followed by conference proceedings (13%). The analysis result indicated that there was statistically significant (p<0.05) variation in publication productivity in relation to years in academic profession, highest degree earned and academic rank of the respondents. Similarly, faculty members who had track records on research grant winning, theses supervision as well as attending academic conferences andresearch related trainings were more likely to publish (p<0.05) as against those who did not have such experiences. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in publication productivity in relation to sex, age, teaching load andinvolvement in administrative activities.In addition, significant variation (p<0.05) existed on publication productivity across academic disciplines. Faculties in the natural and life science fields generally appeared to publish more than those in the social sciences. Respondents cited several factors that can be implicated in the low prevalence of publication productivity at Jigjiga University. The most cited barriers in order of higher frequency include lack of recognition such as promotion, absence of institutional research journal, poor access to information sources such as internet connectivity, insufficient research facilities, lack of financial incentives, lack of institutional/department support on publication, high publication charges inquired by journals, and poor research and publication atmosphere which were agreed upon by about 75% of the respondents. Most of these obstacles were organizational in nature, and thus focus to improve research productivity should consider tackling these factors at institutional level. Therefore, results of this survey imply that understanding these inhibitory factors and designing appropriate intervention strategy may help Jigjiga University towards improving the research and publication productivity of its academicfaculty members.
(PDF) Publication productivity of academics in Jigjiga University, Ethiopia. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317122603_Publication_productivity_of_academics_in_Jigjiga_University_Ethiopia [accessed Aug 13 2019].
... Smaller institutions do not have the same means to perform research as larger institutions, and thus assessing research productivity at smaller institutions may be difficult. A recent study addressed this concern by proposing a modified impact index that can complement the use of the h index in comparing research productivity at research institutions of various sizes (11). ...
Rationale and objectives:
h-Index has been proposed as a useful bibliometric measure for quantifying research productivity. In this current study, we analyzed h-indices of editorial board members of Radiology journals and tested the hypothesis that editorial board members of Radiology journals with higher impact factors (IF) have higher h-indices.
Materials and methods:
Sixty-two Radiology journals with IF >1 were included. Editorial board members were identified using the journals' websites. Editors' affiliations and research fields of interest were used to distinguish investigators with similar names. Bibliometric indices including number of publications, total citations, citations per publication, and h-index for each editorial board member were obtained using the Web of Science database. Chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to test for differences in bibliographic measures or demographics between groups.
Results:
Among the editorial boards of 62 journals, the median [interquartile range] board h-index was 26 [18, 31] and had 36 [17, 56] members. The median journal IF was 2.27 [1.74, 3.31]. We identified a total of 2204 distinct editors; they had a median [interquartile range] h-index of 23 [13, 35], 120 [58, 215] total publications, 1938 [682, 4634] total citations, and an average of 15.7 [9.96, 24.8] citations per publication. The boards of journals with IF above the median had significantly higher h-indices (P = .002), total publications (P = .01), and total and average citations (both any [P = .003, .009] and nonself-citations [P = .001, .002]) than journals below the median.
Conclusions:
Our data indicate that board members of Radiology journals with higher IF have greater h-indices compared to lower IF journals.
... This normalized index is equal to the square of the h-index divided by the total number of the authorships of the papers (sum of the number of authors for all papers from the set of papers) that determine the h-index of the researcher. The idea of normalization of the h-index was developed further in [153] by construction of the MII-index. This index was constructed for institutions but can also be used for evaluation of a group of researchers who have written a sufficiently large number of papers. ...
In this chapter, selected indicators and indexes (constructed on the basis of research publications and/or on the basis of a set of citations of these publications) are discussed. These indexes are frequently used for assessment of production of individual researchers. The chapter begins with several general remarks about indicators and indexes used in scientometrics. Then the famous h-index of Hirsch, its variants, and indexes complementary to the h-index are discussed. Next the g-index of Egghe as well as the -indexes are described. The h-index, g-index, and -indexes may provide a minimum of information for the quantitative part of assessment of the production of a researcher. Numerous indexes are described further in the text such as the m-index, p-index, -index, A-index, R-index. The discussion of indexes continues with a discussion of indexes for the success of a researcher. In addition, a short list of indexes for quantitative characterization of research networks and their dynamics is presented.
