IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v106y2016i3d10.1007_s11192-015-1831-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health

Author

Listed:
  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez

    (CSIC, Institute of Public Goods and Policies
    SCImago Research Group)

  • Grisel Zacca-González

    (National Medical Sciences Information Centre-Infomed)

  • Benjamín Vargas-Quesada

    (University of Granada
    SCImago Research Group)

  • Félix Moya-Anegón

    (CSIC, Institute of Public Goods and Policies
    SCImago Research Group)

Abstract

Comparative benchmarking with bibliometric indicators can be an aid in decision-making with regard to research management. This study aims to characterize scientific performance in a domain (Public Health) by the institutions of a country (Cuba), taking as reference world output and regional output (other Latin American centers) during the period 2003–2012. A new approach is used here to assess to what extent the leadership of a specific institution can change its citation impact. Cuba was found to have a high level of specialization and scientific leadership that does not match the low international visibility of Cuban institutions. This leading output appears mainly in non-collaborative papers, in national journals; publication in English is very scarce and the rate of international collaboration is very low. The Instituto de Medicina Tropical Pedro Kouri stands out, alone, as a national reference. Meanwhile, at the regional level, Latin American institutions deserving mention for their high autonomy in normalized citation would include Universidad de Buenos Aires (ARG), Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BRA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (ARG), Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (BRA) and the Centro de Pesquisas Rene Rachou (BRA). We identify a crucial aspect that can give rise to misinterpretations of data: a high share of leadership cannot be considered positive for institutions when it is mainly associated with a high proportion of non-collaborative papers and a very low level of performance. Because leadership might be questionable in some cases, we propose future studies to ensure a better interpretation of findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Grisel Zacca-González & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2016. "Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1239-1264, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1831-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bornmann, Lutz, 2013. "The problem of citation impact assessments for recent publication years in institutional evaluations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 722-729.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs & András Schubert & Koenraad Debackere, 2009. "Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 165-188, January.
    3. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Han-Wen Chang & Dar-Zen Chen, 2006. "Research evaluation of research-oriented universities in Taiwan from 1993 to 2003," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 419-435, June.
    4. Vicente P. Guerrero Bote & Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2013. "Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 392-404, February.
    5. Isidro F. Aguillo & Judit Bar-Ilan & Mark Levene & José Luis Ortega, 2010. "Comparing university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 243-256, October.
    6. Giovanni Abramo & Tindaro Cicero & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2013. "National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 311-324, April.
    7. Vieira, E.S. & Gomes, J.A.N.F., 2010. "A research impact indicator for institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 581-590.
    8. Moed, Henk F. & de Moya-Anegón, Félix & López-Illescas, Carmen & Visser, Martijn, 2011. "Is concentration of university research associated with better research performance?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 649-658.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Felix Moya Anegón, 2014. "What proportion of excellent papers makes an institution one of the best worldwide? Specifying thresholds for the interpretation of the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking and the Leiden Ranki," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 732-736, April.
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Stefaner, Moritz & de Moya Anegón, Felix & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2014. "What is the effect of country-specific characteristics on the research performance of scientific institutions? Using multi-level statistical models to rank and map universities and research-focused in," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 581-593.
    11. Clara Calero-Medina & Carmen López-Illescas & Martijn S Visser & Henk F Moed, 2008. "Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: an example from oncology," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 71-81, March.
    12. Félix Moya-Anegón & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Lutz Bornmann & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 421-434, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grisel Zacca-González & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada, 2018. "Medical scientific output and specialization in Latin American countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1635-1650, June.
    2. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Fabio Lorensi Canto & Adilson Luiz Pinto & Edson Mário Gavron & Marcos Talau, 2022. "Latin American and Caribbean journals indexed in Google Scholar Metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 763-783, February.
    4. Bahaa Ibrahim, 2018. "Arab Spring’s effect on scientific productivity and research performance in Arab countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1555-1586, December.
    5. Simone Belli & Joan Baltà, 2019. "Stocktaking scientific publication on bi-regional collaboration between Europe 28 and Latin America and the Caribbean," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1447-1480, December.
    6. Ruben Miranda & Esther Garcia-Carpintero, 2019. "Comparison of the share of documents and citations from different quartile journals in 25 research areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 479-501, October.
    7. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Cassidy R Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2019. "Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guo Chen & Lu Xiao & Chang-ping Hu & Xue-qin Zhao, 2015. "Identifying the research focus of Library and Information Science institutions in China with institution-specific keywords," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 707-724, May.
    2. José Manuel Pastor & Lorenzo Serrano & Irene Zaera, 2015. "The research output of European higher education institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 1867-1893, March.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    4. Chaocheng He & Jiang Wu & Qingpeng Zhang, 2021. "Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4005-4037, May.
    5. Elio Atenógenes Villaseñor & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2017. "Multiparametric characterization of scientometric performance profiles assisted by neural networks: a study of Mexican higher education institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 77-104, January.
    6. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero-Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    7. Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Elena Corera-Alvarez & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2016. "Scientific output of the emerging Cuban biopharmaceutical industry: a scientometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1621-1636, September.
    8. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    9. Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2010. "Toward an objective, reliable and accurate method for measuring research leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 539-553, March.
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Wang, Jian, 2013. "Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P1," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 933-944.
    11. Ping Zhou & Xiaojing Cai & Xiaozan Lyu, 2020. "An in-depth analysis of government funding and international collaboration in scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1331-1347, November.
    12. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2019. "Normalisation of citation impact in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 841-884, August.
    13. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Félix Moya-Anegón & Elena Corera-Álvarez, 2015. "Somes patterns of Cuban scientific publication in Scopus: the current situation and challenges," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 779-794, June.
    14. Nicolás Robinson-García & Daniel Torres-Salinas & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar & Francisco Herrera, 2014. "An insight into the importance of national university rankings in an international context: the case of the I-UGR rankings of Spanish universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1309-1324, November.
    15. Sánchez-Jiménez, Rodrigo & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2017. "The role of guarantor in scientific collaboration: The neighbourhood matters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 103-116.
    16. Félix Moya-Anegón & Carmen López-Illescas & Henk F. Moed, 2014. "How to interpret the position of private sector institutions in bibliometric rankings of research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 283-298, January.
    17. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Jose G. Moreno-Torres & Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar & Francisco Herrera, 2011. "A methodology for Institution-Field ranking based on a bidimensional analysis: the IFQ 2 A index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 771-786, September.
    18. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Sandra Miguel & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2015. "What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 789-810, January.
    19. Mauro G. Carta & Matthias C. Angermeyer & Silvano Tagliagambe, 2021. "The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, European Union, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, April.
    20. An, Lu & Yu, Chuanming & Li, Gang, 2014. "Visual topical analysis of Chinese and American Library and Information Science research institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 217-233.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public Health; Latin America; Cuba; Scientific collaboration; Normalized citation; Leadership;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1831-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.