IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p16079-d990591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Productivity in Terms of Output, Impact, and Collaboration for University Researchers in Saudi Arabia: SciVal Analytics and t -Tests Statistical Based Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed S. Alqahtani

    (Radiological Sciences Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
    BioImaging Unit, Space Research Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK)

  • Mohamed Abbas

    (Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
    Electronics and Communications Department, College of Engineering, Delta University for Science and Technology, Gamasa 35712, Egypt)

  • Mohammed Abdul Muqeet

    (Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia)

  • Hussain M. Almohiy

    (Radiological Sciences Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

Analysis of the research productivity for any university is so important in order to raise its international ranking. Rankings offer universities evidence that the education they deliver is of high quality and top standard. A student’s level of dedication to their studies directly affects the outcome of their academic career. Sitting in on a lecture at a top-five rated institution is far less significant than actively contributing (engaging with classmates, doing research, etc.) at a top-50 ranked university. Using a SciVal dataset of 13 university entities across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia over a span of 5 years (2017–2021), we conducted a scientometric study for three categories, namely Output (O), Impact (I), and Collaboration (C), incorporating a total of 18 features. The methodology for selecting universities in this research depended on selecting the best universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in terms of the number of published research papers and the number of citations. This article aims to forecast the pattern of development and shortcomings faced by researchers from around the country from 2017 to 2021. The dataset is evaluated at the university level with homogenized features termed as “Scholar Plot” (SP), a popular approach to maintain and encourage development at the individual level. It is concluded that variances in efficiency within each knowledge field are the major drivers of heterogeneity in scientific output. Disparities in quality and specialization play a lesser impact in influencing productivity differences. The measure of such disparities using the mean of the group’s significance is illustrated using a t -tests statistical approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed S. Alqahtani & Mohamed Abbas & Mohammed Abdul Muqeet & Hussain M. Almohiy, 2022. "Research Productivity in Terms of Output, Impact, and Collaboration for University Researchers in Saudi Arabia: SciVal Analytics and t -Tests Statistical Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:16079-:d:990591
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16079/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16079/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sergey Kolesnikov & Seokkyun Woo & Yin Li & Philip Shapira & Jan Youtie, 2019. "Mapping the emergence of international university research ventures," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1134-1162, August.
    2. B Ian Hutchins & Xin Yuan & James M Anderson & George M Santangelo, 2016. "Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, September.
    3. Laura Cruz-Castro & Koen Jonkers & Luis Sanz-Menéndez, 2015. "The internationalisation of research institutes," Working Papers 1513, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    4. Lucília Cardoso & Rui Silva & Giovana Goretti Feijó de Almeida & Luís Lima Santos, 2020. "A Bibliometric Model to Analyze Country Research Performance: SciVal Topic Prominence Approach in Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-26, November.
    5. Mila Cascajares & Alfredo Alcayde & José Antonio Garrido-Cardenas & Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro, 2020. "The Contribution of Spanish Science to Patents: Medicine as Case of Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Samira Foladi & Maghsud Solimanpur & Mustafa Jahangoshai Rezaee, 2020. "Inverse Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis for Evaluating Faculties of University with Quasi-Fixed Inputs," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 323-347, February.
    7. José Manuel Pastor & Lorenzo Serrano, 2016. "The determinants of the research output of universities: specialization, quality and inefficiencies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1255-1281, 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. Robertas Damaševičius & Ligita Zailskaitė-Jakštė, 2023. "The Impact of a National Crisis on Research Collaborations: A Scientometric Analysis of Ukrainian Authors 2019–2022," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, August.

    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. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    2. Alona Zharova & Janine Tellinger-Rice & Wolfgang Karl Härdle, 2018. "How to measure the performance of a Collaborative Research Center," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1023-1040, November.
    3. Li, Heyang & Wu, Meijun & Wang, Yougui & Zeng, An, 2022. "Bibliographic coupling networks reveal the advantage of diversification in scientific projects," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    4. Corrêa Jr., Edilson A. & Silva, Filipi N. & da F. Costa, Luciano & Amancio, Diego R., 2017. "Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 498-510.
    5. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2018-001 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Chun-Kai Huang & Cameron Neylon & Lucy Montgomery & Richard Hosking & James P. Diprose & Rebecca N. Handcock & Katie Wilson, 2024. "Open access research outputs receive more diverse citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 825-845, February.
    7. Heng Huang & Donghua Zhu & Xuefeng Wang, 2022. "Evaluating scientific impact of publications: combining citation polarity and purpose," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5257-5281, September.
    8. Thomas Zacharewicz & Luis Sanz Menendez & Koen Jonkers, 2017. "The Internationalisation of Research and Technology Organisations," JRC Research Reports JRC105499, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, May.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Jordan A. Comins & Aaron A. Sorensen & Lutz Bornmann & Iina Hellsten, 2016. "Cited references and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) as two different knowledge representations: clustering and mappings at the paper level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2077-2091, December.
    11. John P A Ioannidis & Kevin Boyack & Paul F Wouters, 2016. "Citation Metrics: A Primer on How (Not) to Normalize," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-7, September.
    12. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2024. "Rank analysis of most cited publications, a new approach for research assessments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    13. Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021. "What Do We Know about Co-Working Spaces? Trends and Challenges Ahead," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    14. Nikoleta E. Glynatsi & Vincent A. Knight, 2021. "A bibliometric study of research topics, collaboration, and centrality in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2017. "The accuracy of confidence intervals for field normalised indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 530-540.
    16. Lívia Mariana Lopes de Souza Torres & Francisco S. Ramos, 2024. "Are Brazilian Higher Education Institutions Efficient in Their Graduate Activities? A Two-Stage Dynamic Data-Envelopment-Analysis Cooperative Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-41, March.
    17. Chi-Swian Wong, 2021. "Science Mapping: A Scientometric Review on Resource Curses, Dutch Diseases, and Conflict Resources during 1993–2020," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-48, July.
    18. Raynell Lang & Kholoud Porter & Hartmut B. Krentz & M. John Gill, 2020. "Evaluating medical conferences: the emerging need for a quality metric," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 759-764, January.
    19. Leonardo Costa Ribeiro & Jorge Nogueira de Paiva Britto & Eduardo da Motta e Albuquerque, 2022. "The emergence of a Global Innovation System: an inter-temporal analysis through a network of networks," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG 645, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    20. B Ian Hutchins & Travis A Hoppe & Rebecca A Meseroll & James M Anderson & George M Santangelo, 2017. "Additional support for RCR: A validated article-level measure of scientific influence," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-3, October.
    21. Xinbing Wang & Huquan Kang & Luoyi Fu & Ling Yao & Jiaxin Ding & Jianghao Wang & Xiaoying Gan & Chenghu Zhou & John E Hopcroft, 2023. "Quantifying knowledge from the perspective of information structurization," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:16079-:d:990591. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.