IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v97y2013i3d10.1007_s11192-013-1058-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence

Author

Listed:
  • O. Mryglod

    (Institute for Condensed Matter Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine)

  • R. Kenna

    (Coventry University)

  • Yu. Holovatch

    (Institute for Condensed Matter Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine)

  • B. Berche

    (Université de Lorraine, Campus de Nancy)

Abstract

Many different measures are used to assess academic research excellence and these are subject to ongoing discussion and debate within the scientometric, university-management and policy-making communities internationally. One topic of continued importance is the extent to which citation-based indicators compare with peer-review-based evaluation. Here we analyse the correlations between values of a particular citation-based impact indicator and peer-review scores in several academic disciplines, from natural to social sciences and humanities. We perform the comparison for research groups rather than for individuals. We make comparisons on two levels. At an absolute level, we compare total impact and overall strength of the group as a whole. At a specific level, we compare academic impact and quality, normalised by the size of the group. We find very high correlations at the former level for some disciplines and poor correlations at the latter level for all disciplines. This means that, although the citation-based scores could help to describe research-group strength, in particular for the so-called hard sciences, they should not be used as a proxy for ranking or comparison of research groups. Moreover, the correlation between peer-evaluated and citation-based scores is weaker for soft sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2013. "Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 767-777, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:97:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1058-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1058-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1058-9
    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/s11192-013-1058-9?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. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    2. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    3. Răzvan V. Florian, 2007. "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 25-32, July.
    4. Claire Donovan, 2007. "Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 538-542, October.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2947 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Péter Vinkler, 2001. "An attempt for defining some basic categories of scientometrics and classifying the indicators of evaluative scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(3), pages 539-544, March.
    7. Declan Butler, 2010. "University rankings smarten up," Nature, Nature, vol. 464(7285), pages 16-17, March.
    8. Leo Egghe, 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 131-152, October.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Gerlind Wallon & Anna Ledin, 2008. "Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 149-156, June.
    10. Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 857-862, June.
    11. Ralph Kenna & Bertrand Berche, 2011. "Critical masses for academic research groups and consequences for higher education research policy and management," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 23(3), pages 1-21.
    12. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2005. "Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 133-143, January.
    13. Péter Vinkler, 2003. "Relations of relative scientometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 687-694, 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. Stephan B. Bruns & David I. Stern, 2016. "Research assessment using early citation information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 917-935, August.
    2. R. Álvarez & E. Cahué & J. Clemente-Gallardo & A. Ferrer & D. Íñiguez & X. Mellado & A. Rivero & G. Ruiz & F. Sanz & E. Serrano & A. Tarancón & Y. Vergara, 2015. "Analysis of academic productivity based on Complex Networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 651-672, September.
    3. Paul Benneworth, 2015. "Between certainty and comprehensiveness in evaluating the societal impact of humanities research," CHEPS Working Papers 201502, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    4. Uddin, Shahadat & Khan, Arif, 2016. "The impact of author-selected keywords on citation counts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1166-1177.
    5. O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2015. "Predicting results of the research excellence framework using departmental h-index: revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 1013-1017, September.
    6. O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2015. "Predicting results of the Research Excellence Framework using departmental h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2165-2180, March.
    7. Hana Tomaskova & Martin Kopecky, 2020. "Specialization of Business Process Model and Notation Applications in Medicine—A Review," Data, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-42, October.
    8. Liyin Zhang & Yuchen Qian & Chao Ma & Jiang Li, 2023. "Continued collaboration shortens the transition period of scientists who move to another institution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1765-1784, March.
    9. Thelwall, Mike & Wilson, Paul, 2014. "Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 963-971.

    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. D. Docampo & D. Egret & L. Cram, 2015. "The effect of university mergers on the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 175-191, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Leo Freyer, 2014. "Robust rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 391-406, August.
    4. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Elvira Curiel-Marin & Manuel Torralbo-Rodríguez & Mónica Vallejo-Ruiz, 2018. "Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: an integrative review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2069-2083, September.
    5. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 514-525.
    6. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    7. Brandão, Luana Carneiro & Soares de Mello, João Carlos Correia Baptista, 2019. "A multi-criteria approach to the h-index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 357-363.
    8. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Kalle Artukka, 2017. "Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 679-695, July.
    9. Alan Peter Matthews, 2012. "South African universities in world rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 675-695, September.
    10. Aparna Basu & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Khushboo Singhal & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2016. "Designing a Composite Index for research performance evaluation at the national or regional level: ranking Central Universities in India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1171-1193, June.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Corrado Costa & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2015. "A multivariate stochastic model to assess research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1755-1772, February.
    12. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    13. 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.
    14. Peter Vinkler, 2018. "Structure of the scientific research and science policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 737-756, February.
    15. Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu & Mihai Păunescu & Adrian Miroiu, 2016. "Research-driven classification and ranking in higher education: an empirical appraisal of a Romanian policy experience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 785-805, May.
    16. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Päivi Kaipainen, 2013. "Productivity analysis of research in Natural Sciences, Technology and Clinical Medicine: an input–output model applied in comparison of Top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 683-699, February.
    17. Kristof Witte & Lenka Hudrlikova, 2013. "What about excellence in teaching? A benevolent ranking of universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 337-364, July.
    18. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    19. Sung-Shun Weng & Yang Liu & Yen-Ching Chuang, 2019. "Reform of Chinese Universities in the Context of Sustainable Development: Teacher Evaluation and Improvement Based on Hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Alexandr Gedranovich & Mykhaylo Salnykov, 2012. "Productivity analysis of Belarusian higher education system," BEROC Working Paper Series 16, Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach Center (BEROC).

    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:97:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1058-9. 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.