IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and year of publication


  • Regina Negri Pagani

    () (Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR) Câmpus Ponta Grossa)

  • João Luiz Kovaleski

    () (Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR) Câmpus Ponta Grossa
    Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR) Câmpus Ponta Grossa)

  • Luis Mauricio Resende

    () (Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR) Câmpus Ponta Grossa
    Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR) Câmpus Ponta Grossa)


Abstract An increase in the number of scientific publications in the last few years, which is directly proportional to the appearance of new journals, has made the researchers’ job increasingly complex and extensive regarding the selection of bibliographic material to support their research. Not only is it a time consuming task, it also requires suitable criteria, since the researchers need to elect systematically the most relevant literature works. Thus the objective of this paper is to propose the methodology called Methodi Ordinatio, which presents criteria to select scientific articles. This methodology employs an adaptation of the ProKnow-C for selection of publications and the InOrdinatio, which is an index to rank by relevance the works selected. This index crosses the three main factors under evaluation in a paper: impact factor, year of publication and number of citations. When applying the equation, the researchers identify among the works selected the most relevant ones to be in their bibliographic portfolio. As a practical application, it is provided a research sample on the theme technology transfer models comprising papers from 1990 to 2015. The results indicated that the methodology is efficient regarding the objectives proposed, and the most relevant papers on technology transfer models are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Regina Negri Pagani & João Luiz Kovaleski & Luis Mauricio Resende, 2015. "Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and year of publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2109-2135, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:105:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1744-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1744-x

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Zopounidis, Constantin & Doumpos, Michael, 2002. "Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 229-246, April.
    2. repec:spr:scient:v:82:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0182-z is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Vinkler, Peter, 1986. "Management system for a scientific research institute based on the assessment of scientific publications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 77-87, April.
    4. Vinkler, Péter, 2012. "The case of scientometricians with the “absolute relative” impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 254-264.
    5. Bhupatiraju, Samyukta & Nomaler, Önder & Triulzi, Giorgio & Verspagen, Bart, 2012. "Knowledge flows – Analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1205-1218.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    7. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    8. Haeussler, Carolin & Jiang, Lin & Thursby, Jerry & Thursby, Marie, 2014. "Specific and general information sharing among competing academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 465-475.
    9. Small, Henry & Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Identifying emerging topics in science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1450-1467.
    10. James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1992. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 645-654, May.
    11. Barham, Bradford L. & Foltz, Jeremy D. & Prager, Daniel L., 2014. "Making time for science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 21-31.
    12. Roy, Bernard, 1993. "Decision science or decision-aid science?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 184-203, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. repec:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1036-:d:138947 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:spr:scient:v:116:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2798-3 is not listed on IDEAS


    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:105:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1744-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.