IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/gjhsjl/v8y2016i5p72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Performance Measures and the Moderating Role of Faculty Characteristics in Epidemiology

Author

Listed:
  • Maryam Okhovati
  • Azam Bazrafshan
  • Morteza Zare
  • Mina Moradzadeh
  • Ali Mohammad Mokhtari

Abstract

Several numeric measures have been proposed to evaluate the individual researchers’ scientific performance. Among these measures, h-index is the most common and well recognized measure of research productivity and impact in scientific communities. However, empirical investigations and recent inspections revealed some shortcomings and limitations of this measure. In order to complement these limitations, several variants have been proposed in which g-index and ar-index were among the most discussed measures. The aim of this study was to examine h-index, g-index and ar-index across Iranian epidemiologists to identify the moderating characteristics as well as the distribution of these measures in the field. Using Web of Science Database, a list of Iranian epidemiologists was searched and total number of articles, total citations, and citations per paper, h-index, scientific age, g-index and ar-index were extracted and calculated for any epidemiologist. Descriptive statistics and multivariate linear regression models were used to examine research performance measures of Iranian epidemiologists. According to our findings, research performance measures found to be statistically associated with scientific age and academic ranking of Iranian Epidemiologists. Gender differences were not relevant to research performance across different measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Maryam Okhovati & Azam Bazrafshan & Morteza Zare & Mina Moradzadeh & Ali Mohammad Mokhtari, 2016. "Research Performance Measures and the Moderating Role of Faculty Characteristics in Epidemiology," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(5), pages 1-72, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:8:y:2016:i:5:p:72
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/download/50228/28256
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/50228
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. Malesios & S. Psarakis, 2014. "Comparison of the h-index for different fields of research using bootstrap methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 521-545, January.
    2. Du Jian & Tang Xiaoli, 2013. "Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 277-295, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kim, Jinseok & Kim, Jinmo, 2015. "Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 667-673.
    2. Rahman, Mohammad Tariqur & Regenstein, Joe Mac & Kassim, Noor Lide Abu & Haque, Nazmul, 2017. "The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 275-281.
    3. Edson Melo Souza & Jose Eduardo Storopoli & Wonder Alexandre Luz Alves, 2022. "Scientific Contribution List Categories Investigation: a comparison between three mainstream medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2249-2276, May.
    4. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    5. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    6. Sandro Tarkhan-Mouravi, 2020. "Traditional indicators inflate some countries’ scientific impact over 10 times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 337-356, April.
    7. Ricardo Chalmeta & Nestor J. Santos-deLeón, 2020. "Sustainable Supply Chain in the Era of Industry 4.0 and Big Data: A Systematic Analysis of Literature and Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-24, May.
    8. John T. Li, 2016. "What we learn from the shifts in highly cited data from 2001 to 2014?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 57-82, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Siluo Yang & Dietmar Wolfram & Feifei Wang, 2017. "The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1273-1296, March.
    11. Marcel Clermont & Johanna Krolak & Dirk Tunger, 2021. "Does the citation period have any effect on the informative value of selected citation indicators in research evaluations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1019-1047, February.
    12. Carla Mara Hilário & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio & Daniel Martínez-Ávila & Dietmar Wolfram, 2023. "Authorship order as an indicator of similarity between article discourse and author citation identity in informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5389-5410, October.
    13. E. M. Murgado-Armenteros & M. Gutiérrez-Salcedo & F. J. Torres-Ruiz & M. J. Cobo, 2015. "Analysing the conceptual evolution of qualitative marketing research through science mapping analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 519-557, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:gjhsjl:v:8:y:2016:i:5:p:72. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.