IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v123y2020i1d10.1007_s11192-020-03389-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Thomas theorem in research evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann

    (Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society)

  • Werner Marx

    (Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research)

Abstract

The well-known “Thomas theorem” in sociology is defined as follows: “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas, The child in America, Knopf, Oxford, 1928, p. 572). The theorem focuses on “objective consequences of human subjectivity” (Sztompka, Robert K. Merton: An intellectual profile, Macmillan Education, Limited, London, 1986, p. 229). In this Letter to the Editor, we transfer the thought content of the Thomas theorem to university rankings: if rank positions between two universities define performance differences as real, they are real in their consequences (although the university ranking shows only slight differences between the universities’ scores).

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2020. "Thomas theorem in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 553-555, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:123:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03389-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03389-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03389-6
    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/s11192-020-03389-6?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. Christopher Claassen, 2015. "Measuring university quality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 793-807, September.
    2. Fredrik Niclas Piro & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2016. "How can differences in international university rankings be explained?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2263-2278, December.
    3. Jill Johnes, 2018. "University rankings: What do they really show?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 585-606, April.
    4. Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2012. "Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 71-78, February.
    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. O. Mryglod & Yu. Holovatch & R. Kenna, 2022. "Big fish and small ponds: why the departmental h-index should not be used to rank universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3279-3292, June.
    2. Ernesto Galbán-Rodríguez & Deborah Torres-Ponjuán & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge, 2021. "Multidimensional quantitative analysis of the Cuban scientific output and its regional context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2643-2665, March.
    3. Ada Domańska & Ewa Więcek-Janka & Robert Zajkowski, 2022. "Implementing Sustainable Development Concept: A Typology of Family Firms in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, April.

    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. McAleer, M.J. & Nakamura, T. & Watkins, C., 2018. "Size, Internationalization and University Rankings: Evaluating Times Higher Education (THE) Data for Japan," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2018-43, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    2. Michael McAleer & Tamotsu Nakamura & Clinton Watkins, 2019. "Size, Internationalization, and University Rankings: Evaluating and Predicting Times Higher Education (THE) Data for Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Csóka, Imola & Sebestyén, Géza & Neszveda, Gábor, 2019. "Tudományos teljesítmény mérése a magyar felsőoktatás gazdasági képzéseiben [Measuring scientific performance of business and economics faculties in Hungarian higher education]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 751-770.
    4. Ernesto Galbán-Rodríguez & Deborah Torres-Ponjuán & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge, 2021. "Multidimensional quantitative analysis of the Cuban scientific output and its regional context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2643-2665, March.
    5. Wu, Jiang & Ou, Guiyan & Liu, Xiaohui & Dong, Ke, 2022. "How does academic education background affect top researchers’ performance? Evidence from the field of artificial intelligence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    6. 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.
    7. Gerhard Reichmann & Christian Schlögl, 2022. "On the possibilities of presenting the research performance of an institute over a long period of time: the case of the Institute of Information Science at the University of Graz in Austria," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3193-3223, June.
    8. Massucci, Francesco Alessandro & Docampo, Domingo, 2019. "Measuring the academic reputation through citation networks via PageRank," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 185-201.
    9. Enis Siniksaran & M. Hakan Satman, 2020. "WURS: a simulation software for university rankings—software review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 701-717, January.
    10. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    11. Mónica Benito & Pilar Gil & Rosario Romera, 2019. "Funding, is it key for standing out in the university rankings?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 771-792, November.
    12. Zsuzsanna Banász & Zsolt T. Kosztyán & Vivien V. Csányi & András Telcs, 2023. "University leagues alongside rankings," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 721-736, February.
    13. Vicente Safón & Domingo Docampo, 2020. "Analyzing the impact of reputational bias on global university rankings based on objective research performance data: the case of the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2199-2227, December.
    14. Wei-Chao Lin & Ching Chen, 2021. "Novel World University Rankings Combining Academic, Environmental and Resource Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Juan Antonio Dip, 2021. "What does U-multirank tell us about knowledge transfer and research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3011-3039, April.
    16. Vicente Safón, 2013. "What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 223-244, November.
    17. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Butz & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2018. "What are the top five journals in economics? A new meta-ranking," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(6), pages 659-675, February.
    18. Wenqiang Fan & Qinghui Liu, 2016. "Open scholarship ranking of Chinese research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 673-691, August.
    19. Cinzia Daraio, 2017. "A framework for the Assessment of Research and its impacts," DIAG Technical Reports 2017-04, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    20. Julian D. Cortes & Liliana Rivera & Katerina Bohle Carbonell, 2021. "Mission Statements in Universities: Readability and performance," Papers 2104.07438, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bibliometrics; Thomas theorem;

    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:spr:scient:v:123:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03389-6. 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.