IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v109y2016i3d10.1007_s11192-016-2097-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The information value of early career productivity in mathematics: a ROC analysis of prediction errors in bibliometricly informed decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Jonas Lindahl

    (Umeå University)

  • Rickard Danell

    (Umeå University)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide a framework to evaluate bibliometric indicators as decision support tools from a decision making perspective and to examine the information value of early career publication rate as a predictor of future productivity. We used ROC analysis to evaluate a bibliometric indicator as a tool for binary decision making. The dataset consisted of 451 early career researchers in the mathematical sub-field of number theory. We investigated the effect of three different definitions of top performance groups—top 10, top 25, and top 50 %; the consequences of using different thresholds in the prediction models; and the added prediction value of information on early career research collaboration and publications in prestige journals. We conclude that early career performance productivity has an information value in all tested decision scenarios, but future performance is more predictable if the definition of a high performance group is more exclusive. Estimated optimal decision thresholds using the Youden index indicated that the top 10 % decision scenario should use 7 articles, the top 25 % scenario should use 7 articles, and the top 50 % should use 5 articles to minimize prediction errors. A comparative analysis between the decision thresholds provided by the Youden index which take consequences into consideration and a method commonly used in evaluative bibliometrics which do not take consequences into consideration when determining decision thresholds, indicated that differences are trivial for the top 25 and the 50 % groups. However, a statistically significant difference between the methods was found for the top 10 % group. Information on early career collaboration and publication strategies did not add any prediction value to the bibliometric indicator publication rate in any of the models. The key contributions of this research is the focus on consequences in terms of prediction errors and the notion of transforming uncertainty into risk when we are choosing decision thresholds in bibliometricly informed decision making. The significance of our results are discussed from the point of view of a science policy and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonas Lindahl & Rickard Danell, 2016. "The information value of early career productivity in mathematics: a ROC analysis of prediction errors in bibliometricly informed decision making," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2241-2262, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2097-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2097-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2097-9
    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/s11192-016-2097-9?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. Frank Havemann & Birger Larsen, 2015. "Bibliometric indicators of young authors in astrophysics: Can later stars be predicted?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1413-1434, February.
    2. Henk F Moed, 2007. "The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 575-583, October.
    3. Rickard Danell, 2011. "Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 50-60, January.
    4. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 132-140, January.
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Testing the trade‐off between productivity and quality in research activities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 132-140, January.
    6. Pierre Dubois & Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean-Marc Schlenker, 2014. "Productivity and mobility in academic research: evidence from mathematicians," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1669-1701, March.
    7. Rickard Danell, 2011. "Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 50-60, January.
    8. Zhigang Hu & Chaomei Chen & Zeyuan Liu, 2014. "How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1553-1564, November.
    9. Pablo Jensen & Jean-Baptiste Rouquier & Yves Croissant, 2009. "Testing bibliometric indicators by their prediction of scientists promotions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(3), pages 467-479, March.
    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. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predicting the research performance of early career scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1481-1504, December.
    2. Lindahl, Jonas, 2018. "Predicting research excellence at the individual level: The importance of publication rate, top journal publications, and top 10% publications in the case of early career mathematicians," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 518-533.
    3. Deise Deolindo Silva & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Dispersion measures for h-index: a study of the Brazilian researchers in the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 1983-2011, March.
    4. Pär Sundling, 2023. "Author contributions and allocation of authorship credit: testing the validity of different counting methods in the field of chemical biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2737-2762, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Lindahl, Jonas, 2018. "Predicting research excellence at the individual level: The importance of publication rate, top journal publications, and top 10% publications in the case of early career mathematicians," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 518-533.
    3. Jonas Lindahl & Cristian Colliander & Rickard Danell, 2020. "Early career performance and its correlation with gender and publication output during doctoral education," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 309-330, January.
    4. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predicting the research performance of early career scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1481-1504, December.
    5. Wanjun Xia & Tianrui Li & Chongshou Li, 2023. "A review of scientific impact prediction: tasks, features and methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 543-585, January.
    6. Tian Yu & Guang Yu & Peng-Yu Li & Liang Wang, 2014. "Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1233-1252, November.
    7. Christopher Zou & Jordan B. Peterson, 2016. "Quantifying the scientific output of new researchers using the zp-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 901-916, March.
    8. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Anastasiia Soldatenkova, 2016. "The dispersion of the citation distribution of top scientists’ publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1711-1724, December.
    9. Mingyang Wang & Guang Yu & Shuang An & Daren Yu, 2012. "Discovery of factors influencing citation impact based on a soft fuzzy rough set model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 635-644, December.
    10. Wang, Mingyang & Yu, Guang & Xu, Jianzhong & He, Huixin & Yu, Daren & An, Shuang, 2012. "Development a case-based classifier for predicting highly cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 586-599.
    11. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2016. "A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 889-901.
    12. Fenghua Wang & Ying Fan & An Zeng & Zengru Di, 2019. "Can we predict ESI highly cited publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 109-125, January.
    13. Huang, Ding-wei, 2016. "Positive correlation between quality and quantity in academic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 329-335.
    14. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Thomas J. Sugimoto & Andrew Tsou & Staša Milojević & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Age stratification and cohort effects in scholarly communication: a study of social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 997-1016, November.
    15. Vahid Garousi & João M. Fernandes, 2017. "Quantity versus impact of software engineering papers: a quantitative study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 963-1006, August.
    16. Tehmina Amjad & Nafeesa Shahid & Ali Daud & Asma Khatoon, 2022. "Citation burst prediction in a bibliometric network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2773-2790, May.
    17. Peter Klimek & Aleksandar Jovanovic & Rainer Egloff & Reto Schneider, 2016. "Successful fish go with the flow: citation impact prediction based on centrality measures for term–document networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1265-1282, June.
    18. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Fulvio Viel, 2011. "The field-standardized average impact of national research systems compared to world average: the case of Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 599-615, August.
    19. Petr Heneberg, 2013. "Lifting the fog of scientometric research artifacts: On the scientometric analysis of environmental tobacco smoke research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 334-344, February.
    20. Bornmann, Lutz & Williams, Richard, 2017. "Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 788-799.

    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:109:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2097-9. 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.