Figure 1 - uploaded by Fei Shu
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Tenure provides a permanent position to faculty in higher education institutions. In North America, it is granted to those who have established a record of excellence in research, teaching and services in a limited period. However, in China, research excellence (represented by the number of Web of Science publications) is highly weighted in the ten...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... are 2,631 higher education institutions in China, including 1,236 universities offering undergraduate programs (Ministry of Education of China, 2017a). These universities can be stratified into three tiers (Figure 1) following the classification established by two national elite universities programs: Project 211 universities, Project 985 universities, and other universities. ...
Context 2
... includes 39 universities; those are also in Project 211, which means that they can receive government funding from both national projects. Project 985 and Project 211 have been closed to new members since 2011, fixing the stratification of the Chinese university system into three tiers (Figure 1): Tier 1 (all universities admitted to Project 985), Tier 2 (all universities not admitted to Project 985 but admitted to Project 211) and Tier 3 (universities admitted neither to Project 985 nor to Project 211). Although a new national research program, "Double World-Class" 2 , was initiated by the Chinese government in 2018, it was not in effect during the period of our investigation. ...
Similar publications
[Purpose] Information about clinical trials related to physical therapy (CTPT) in Japan, which has the highest aging rate in the world, is essential for physical therapy education, research, and policymaking to change and strengthen the education system and promote research grants. This survey aimed to clarify the proportion of CTPT in the clinical...
Citations
... Citation-based indicators are at the heart of many national evaluation systems (60-61), university rankings (62), and tenure and promotion criteria (63)(64). Although known to be imperfect indicators of research impact (65), there is general consensus they convey valuable information on how a piece of research influences the creation of new knowledge, and demonstrate some form of interaction between past and current research. ...
Science is a cumulative activity, which can manifest itself through the act of citing. Citations are also central to research evaluation, thus creating incentives for researchers to cite their own work. Using a dataset containing more than 63 million articles and 51 million disambiguated authors, this paper examines the relative importance of self-citations and self-references in the scholarly communication landscape, their relationship with the age and gender of authors, as well as their effects on various research evaluation indicators. Results show that self-citations and self-references evolve in different directions throughout researchers' careers, and that men and older researchers are more likely to self-cite. Although self-citations have, on average, a small to moderate effect on author's citation rates, they highly inflate citations for a subset of researchers. Comparison of the abstracts of cited and citing papers to assess the relatedness of different types of citations shows that self-citations are more similar to each other than other types of citations, and therefore more relevant. However, researchers that self-reference more tend to include less relevant citations. The paper concludes with a discussion of the role of self-citations in scholarly communication.
... The first two countries, however, are interchanged in the first places in Scopus and WoS. This perhaps demonstrates a preference by China to publish in WoS journals (see Figure 5) as a result of its policy to measure research excellence [48]. Otherwise, Figure 5 shows that India, Turkey, and the Czech Republic are countries that have increased their collaborations in recent years. ...
Material science is a broad discipline focused on subjects such as metals, ceramics, polymers, electronics, and composite materials. Each of these fields covers areas associated with designing, synthesizing, and manufacturing, materials. These are tasks in which the use of technology may constitute paramount importance, reducing cost and time to develop new materials and substituting try-and-error standard procedures. This study aimed to analyze, quantify and map the scientific production of research on the fourth industrial revolution linked to material science studies in Scopus and Web of Science databases from 2017 to 2021. For this bibliometric analysis, the Biblioshiny software from RStudio was employed to categorize and evaluate the contribution of authors, countries, institutions, and journals. VOSviewer was used to visualize their collaboration networks. As a result, we found that artificial intelligence represents a hotspot technology used in material science, which has become usual in molecular simulations and manufacturing industries. Recent studies aim to provide possible avenues in the discovery and design of new high-entropy alloys as well as to detect and classify corrosion in the industrial sector. This bibliometric analysis releases an updated perspective on the implementations of technologies in material science as a possible guideline for future worldwide research.
... The first two countries, however, are interchanged in the first places in Scopus and WoS. This perhaps demonstrates a preference by China to publish in WoS journals (see Figure 5) as a result of its policy to measure research excellence [48]. Otherwise, Figure 5 shows that India, Turkey, and the Czech Republic are countries that have increased their collaborations in recent years. ...
Material science is a broad discipline focused on subjects such as metals, ceramics, polymers, electronics, and composite materials. Each of these fields covers areas associated with designing, synthesizing, and manufacturing, materials. These are tasks in which the use of technology may constitute paramount importance, reducing cost and time to develop new materials and substituting try-and-error standard procedures. This study aimed to analyze, quantify and map the scientific production of research on the fourth industrial revolution linked to material science studies in Scopus and Web of Science databases from 2017 to 2021. For this bibliometric analysis, the Biblioshiny software from RStudio was employed to categorize and evaluate the contribution of authors, countries, institutions, and journals. VOSviewer was used to visualize their collaboration networks. As a result, we found that artificial intelligence represents a hotspot technology used in material science, which has become usual in molecular simulations and manufacturing industries. Recent studies aim to provide possible avenues in the discovery and design of new high-entropy alloys as well as to detect and classify corrosion in the industrial sector. This bibliometric analysis releases an updated perspective on the implementations of technologies in material science as a possible guideline for future worldwide research.
... This will certainly change in the future, as Chinese researchers are now aware of the importance of impact factors and other bibliometric key figures. They are obliged by governmental policies to produce not only quantity, but also high-quality studies that are listed in WoS [31,32]. ...
Background
Unlike most other commodities, rare earth elements (REEs) are part of a wide range of applications needed for daily life all over the world. These applications range from cell phones to electric vehicles to wind turbines. They are often declared as part of “green technology” and, therefore, often called “green elements”. However, their production and use are not only useful but also risky to the environment and human health, as many studies have shown. Consequently, the range of global research efforts is broad and highly variable, and therefore difficult to capture and assess. Hence, this study aims to assess the global parameters of global research on REE in the context of environment and health (REEeh). In addition to established bibliometric parameters, advanced analyses using market driver and scientific infrastructure values were carried out to provide deep insight into incentives, necessities, and barriers to international research.
Results
The focus of REE research is in line with national aspirations, especially from the major global players, China and the USA. Whereas globally, regional research interests are related to market interests, as evidenced by the inclusion of drivers such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, and permanent magnets. The topics receiving the most attention are related to gadolinium used for magnetic resonance imaging and the use of ceria nanoparticles. Since both are used for medical purposes, the medical research areas are equally profiled and mainly addressed in high-income countries. Nevertheless, environmental issues are increasingly in focus.
Conclusions
There is still a need for research that is independent and open-ended. For this, market-independent technologies, substitutes and recycling of REEs need to be addressed scientifically. The results of this study are relevant for all stakeholders, from individual scientists to planners to funders, to improve future research strategies in line with these research mandates.
Graphical Abstract
... But so too do national scientific infrastructures and reputations. The scale and quality of research, and even library subscription practices, are heavily influenced by the amount of funding countries set aside for the scientific enterprise [1][2][3][4] . Countries with these advantages probably receive additional citations for their research, over and above what one would expect just from the subject matter of that research 5 , something that scholars of the Global South have suggested before 2,6,7 . ...
... KLD compares probability distributions. To process the text of scientific articles so that each country has its own probability distribution, we apply NL-LDA models on abstracts from MAG publication abstracts to measure how similar or dissimilar the phenomena studied by researchers in different countries are [2][3][4] . We apply an NL-LDA model to each Field t corpus. ...
Citations and text analysis are both used to study the distribution and flow of ideas between researchers, fields and countries, but the resulting flows are rarely equal. We argue that the differences in these two flows capture a growing global inequality in the production of scientific knowledge. We offer a framework called ‘citational lensing’ to identify where citations should appear between countries but are absent given that what is embedded in their published abstract texts is highly similar. This framework also identifies where citations are overabundant given lower similarity. Our data come from nearly 20 million papers across nearly 35 years and 150 fields from the Microsoft Academic Graph. We find that scientific communities increasingly centre research from highly active countries while overlooking work from peripheral countries. This inequality is likely to pose substantial challenges to the growth of novel ideas.
... Some of the effective ways to increase the scientific production are through funding novel research and modified tenure system. [36] This study is not without limitations. The first one is related to the selection of researchers whose GS profiles were identified as "unbalanced profiles" or outliers. ...
Measuring scientific impact has long become a fact of academic life. Better scholarly output is related to higher chances of being promoted and winning a research grant. There are numerous ways to measure scholarly impact, such as through the number of publications and citation analysis. The most widely used databases for assessing these
metrics are Google Scholar (GS), Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS). The goal of the present paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of GS profiles and to compare GS metrics with different metric indices from Scopus and WoS. An additional goal is to do a qualitative analysis of profiles that were identified as outliers through the visual inspection of various metric indices ratios. The sample for this study consisted of 100 researchers from the University of Sarajevo with highest number of citations according to their GS profiles. The results of this study indicated a high correlation between different metric indices.
Outlier analysis revealed several errors in GS profiles, some of which are attributable to GS algorithms. An in-depth analysis of outliers provided important data for identifying limitations of all metrics currently used in researcher’s evaluation. We conclude the article
with several suggestions on how to improve the evaluation of individual scholar’s research output.
... Similarly, Alshare et al. (2007) reported that 85% of deans of research-focused U.S. business schools accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) specifically looked for high-JIF publications when making P&T decisions. Also, the European Commission report on open science practices (Report, 2017) found that 68% of the 154 European universities surveyed used JIF as an indicator of scholarly impact, and Shu, Quan, Chen, Qiu, Sugimoto, and Larivière (2020) reported that universities in China commonly consider JIF when evaluating candidates for P&T. Most worryingly, Powdthavee, Riyanto, and Knetsch (2018) found that publications in lower JIF outlets are viewed so negativelyregardless of the merits of the articlethat they significantly decrease the overall assessment of the researcher. ...
We address the grossly incorrect inferences that result from using journal impact factor (JIF) as a proxy to assess individual researcher and article scholarly impact. This invalid practice occurs because of confusion about the definition and measurement of impact at different levels of analysis. Specifically, JIF is a journal-level measure of impact, computed by aggregating citations of individual articles (i.e., upward effect), and is therefore inappropriate when measuring impact at lower levels of analysis, such as that of individual researchers, or of individual articles published in a particular journal (i.e., downward effect). We illustrate the severity of the errors that occur when using JIF to evaluate individual scholarly impact, and advocate for an immediate moratorium on the exclusive use of JIF and other journal-level (i.e., higher level of analysis) measures when assessing the impact of individual researchers and individual articles (i.e., lower level of analysis). Given the importance and interest in assessing the scholarly impact of researchers and articles, we delineate level-appropriate and readily available measures.
... SCI papers became mandatory requirements for doctoral degrees, faculty hiring and promotion, funding applications, and university rankings. Publishing in a subset of SCI-indexed elite journals leads to major research funding, as well as additional rewards, such as promotion from assistant to full professor, appointment as Chair or Dean, and even to university president (Shu et al. 2020a). Cash-per-publication policies have also been widespread, leading to additional revenues of up to 1 million CNY per paper (150,000USD) (Quan et al. 2017). ...
... Since the 1990s, the number of international papers indexed by SCI has been applied to research evaluation in China to increase the international visibility of China's research (Gong and Qu 2010;Quan et al. 2017). In addition to the research evaluation policies, monetary incentives and performance bonus are also used to encourage Chinese scholars to publish SCI papers (Peng 2011;Quan et al. 2017;Shu et al. 2020a), eventually forming a SCI-based research evaluation system in which SCI-based indicators become the most important criterion in tenure assessment, funding application, university ranking and other research assessment activities (Quan et al. 2017;Zhao and Ma 2019;Shu et al. 2020a). As a result, Chinese scholars, especially in Natural Sciences, are required to publish SCI papers for their tenure and promotion as university and research institutes rely on such SCI-based indicators for their ranking and funding records (Shu et al. 2020a;Wang and Li 2015). ...
... Since the 1990s, the number of international papers indexed by SCI has been applied to research evaluation in China to increase the international visibility of China's research (Gong and Qu 2010;Quan et al. 2017). In addition to the research evaluation policies, monetary incentives and performance bonus are also used to encourage Chinese scholars to publish SCI papers (Peng 2011;Quan et al. 2017;Shu et al. 2020a), eventually forming a SCI-based research evaluation system in which SCI-based indicators become the most important criterion in tenure assessment, funding application, university ranking and other research assessment activities (Quan et al. 2017;Zhao and Ma 2019;Shu et al. 2020a). As a result, Chinese scholars, especially in Natural Sciences, are required to publish SCI papers for their tenure and promotion as university and research institutes rely on such SCI-based indicators for their ranking and funding records (Shu et al. 2020a;Wang and Li 2015). ...
In the 1990s, China created a research evaluation system based on publications indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and on the Journal Impact Factor. Such system helped the country become the largest contributor to the scientific literature and increased the position of Chinese universities in international rankings. Although the system had been criticized by many because of its adverse effects, the policy reform for research evaluation crawled until the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic, which accidently accelerates the process of policy reform. This paper highlights the background and principles of this reform, provides evidence of its effects, and discusses the implications for global science.
... A principios del mes de mayo de 2021 se llevó a cabo una búsqueda en la Web of Science (WoS), una de las más importantes bases de datos a nivel mundial, considerada así debido a que en algunas latitudes la investigación de excelencia se relaciona directamente con las publicaciones en ella (Shu et al., 2020). Se utilizó de manera particular la colección principal, conformada por los índices (Web of Science, 2021): Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) y Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). ...
El objetivo de este trabajo consistió en realizar un estudio bibliométrico sobre las aportaciones teóricas de cultura organizacional en el periodo 2001-2020. Para logarlo, se realizó una búsqueda en el Web of Science (WoS), que generó un listado de 1,337 artículos, utilizado para realizar cinco tipos de análisis en VOSviewer. Los principales hallazgos muestran a la Universidad Australiana de Queensland y a los EEUU como principal organización y país en números de citas. La publicación más citada es las de Ravasi y Schultz, el autor con mayor número de citas es Griffiths y el de coautorías Meterko. Se refrendan a Schein, Hofstede y Denison, como los autores más co-citados en las referencias. Existe un importante crecimiento tanto en número de publicaciones como en citas del tema, aunado a otros que pueden ser profundizados y quizá incluirse de forma emergente aspectos relacionados con el uso de tecnología, redes sociales, alienación, resiliencia, entre otros
... First, apart from citation window problems and the fact that junior researchers are still too young to be mentioned in the reviews we examined, we presume another reason for the gaps in Fig. 6 is that junior researchers tend to publish in international journals instead of Chinese journals. The changing policies of reward and career promotion in recent years have influenced journal submission preferences in China, which has led to low visibility for junior researchers in the Chinese community [48]. We acknowledge this as one limitation of our paper and suggest that future study is warranted to explore how Chinese researchers choose where to publish their works. ...
In this paper, we discuss how research methods are used in the Chinese library and information science (LIS) community, a fundamental question in the pursuit of a global overview of this interdisciplinary research domain. We used manual coding to identify research methods mentioned in 2,421 Chinese-language papers written by 53 prestigious Chinese LIS researchers across different generations. For all selected publications, we manually identified and classified methods using a modified version of an established classification scheme for LIS research methods. Moreover, we examined how research methods are used by researchers belonging to different age groups over time. We identified a significant shift in the use of methods among examined publications: quantitative methods are increasingly used over time, driven both by the emergence of newer generations of researchers and by senior researchers gradually adopting newer methods. These findings reflect a major, and heretofore undiscussed, shift in research style in the LIS community in China. Our approach facilitates a new, more dynamic discussion of how research methods are adopted in a research community and will greatly contribute to future studies on this topic.
