IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i1d10.1007_s11192-022-04551-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A heuristic approach based on Leiden rankings to identify outliers: evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Cinzia Daraio

    (DIAG Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Simone Di Leo

    (DIAG Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Loet Leydesdorff

    (University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communication Research)

Abstract

We propose an innovative use of the Leiden Rankings (LR) in institutional management. Although LR only consider research output of major universities reported in Web of Science (WOS) and share the limitations of other existing rankings, we show that they can be used as a base of a heuristic approach to identify “outlying” institutions that perform significantly below or above expectations. Our approach is a non-rigorous intuitive method (“heuristic”) because is affected by all the biases due to the technical choices and incompleteness that affect the LR but offers the possibility to discover interesting findings to be systematically verified later. We propose to use LR as a departure base on which to apply statistical analysis and network mapping to identify “outlier” institutions to be analyzed in detail as case studies. Outliers can inform and guide science policies about alternative options. Analyzing the publications of the Politecnico di Bari in more detail, we observe that “small teams” led by young and promising scholars can push the performance of a university up to the top of the LR. As argued by Moed (Applied evaluative informetrics. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, 2017a), supporting “emerging teams”, can provide an alternative to research support policies, adopted to encourage virtuous behaviours and best practices in research. The results obtained by this heuristic approach need further verification and systematic analysis but may stimulate further studies and insights on the topics of university rankings policy, institutional management, dynamics of teams, good research practice and alternative funding methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2023. "A heuristic approach based on Leiden rankings to identify outliers: evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 483-510, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04551-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04551-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04551-y
    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/s11192-022-04551-y?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. Aria, Massimo & Cuccurullo, Corrado, 2017. "bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 959-975.
    2. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    3. Cinzia Daraio & Andrea Bonaccorsi, 2017. "Beyond university rankings? Generating new indicators on universities by linking data in open platforms," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(2), pages 508-529, February.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2013. "The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 158-165.
    5. Olcay, Gokcen Arkali & Bulu, Melih, 2017. "Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 153-160.
    6. Marlo M Vernon & E Andrew Balas & Shaher Momani, 2018. "Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Johan S. G. Chu & James A. Evans, 2021. "Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(41), pages 2021636118-, October.
    8. John P. A. Ioannidis, 2011. "Fund people not projects," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7366), pages 529-531, September.
    9. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    10. Mitcham, Carl & Emeritus,, 2021. "Science policy and democracy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    11. Shouhuai Xu & Moti Yung & Jingguo Wang, 2021. "Seeking Foundations for the Science of Cyber Security," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 263-267, April.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & John Mingers, 2019. "Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the leiden rankings," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(5), pages 509-525, May.
    13. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Testing differences statistically with the Leiden ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 781-783, September.
    14. Caroline S. Wagner & Lin Zhang & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "A discussion of measuring the top-1% most-highly cited publications: quality and impact of Chinese papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1825-1839, April.
    15. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2020. "Using normative ethics for building a good evaluation of research practices: towards the assessment of researcher’s virtues," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1053-1075, November.
    16. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    17. Schneider, Jesper W., 2013. "Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 50-62.
    18. Henk F. Moed & Gali Halevi, 2015. "Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 1988-2002, October.
    19. Renato Bruni & Giuseppe Catalano & Cinzia Daraio & Martina Gregori & Henk F. Moed, 2020. "Studying the heterogeneity of European higher education institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1117-1144, November.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Andrea Ciriaco & Grilli, Leonardo, 2016. "From rankings to funnel plots: The question of accounting for uncertainty when assessing university research performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 854-862.
    21. Henk F. Moed, 2017. "A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 967-990, February.
    22. Shalabh, 2021. "Statistical inference via data science," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 1155-1155, July.
    23. Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma, 2021. "India: draft science policy calls for public engagement," Nature, Nature, vol. 592(7852), pages 26-26, April.
    24. Lisa Mandle & Analisa Shields-Estrada & Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer & Matthew G. E. Mitchell & Leah L. Bremer & Jesse D. Gourevitch & Peter Hawthorne & Justin A. Johnson & Brian E. Robinson & Jeffrey R. Sm, 2021. "Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 161-169, February.
    25. Jean J. Wang & Sarah X. Shao & Fred Y. Ye, 2021. "Identifying 'seed' papers in sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6001-6011, July.
    26. Colliander, Cristian & Ahlgren, Per, 2011. "The effects and their stability of field normalization baseline on relative performance with respect to citation impact: A case study of 20 natural science departments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 101-113.
    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. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    2. Thomas, Duncan Andrew & Ramos-Vielba, Irene, 2022. "Reframing study of research(er) funding towards configurations and trails," SocArXiv uty2v, Center for Open Science.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael Färber & Melissa Coutinho & Shuzhou Yuan, 2023. "Biases in scholarly recommender systems: impact, prevalence, and mitigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2703-2736, May.
    5. Liang, Zhentao & Ba, Zhichao & Mao, Jin & Li, Gang, 2023. "Research complexity increases with scientists’ academic age: Evidence from library and information science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    6. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    7. Malte Hückstädt, 2023. "Ten reasons why research collaborations succeed—a random forest approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1923-1950, March.
    8. Zhuanlan Sun & C. Clark Cao & Sheng Liu & Yiwei Li & Chao Ma, 2024. "Behavioral consequences of second-person pronouns in written communications between authors and reviewers of scientific papers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Weihua Li & Sam Zhang & Zhiming Zheng & Skyler J. Cranmer & Aaron Clauset, 2022. "Untangling the network effects of productivity and prominence among scientists," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V. & Shmatko, Natalia A., 2023. "Uncited papers in the structure of scientific communication," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    11. Manuel Goyanes & Márton Demeter & Aurea Grané & Tamás Tóth & Homero Gil Zúñiga, 2023. "Research patterns in communication (2009–2019): testing female representation and productivity differences, within the most cited authors and the field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 137-156, January.
    12. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    13. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    14. Jiang, Zhuoren & Lin, Tianqianjin & Huang, Cui, 2023. "Deep representation learning of scientific paper reveals its potential scholarly impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    15. Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Multifactor Citation Analysis over Five Years: A Case Study of SIGMETRICS Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Pan Zhang & Yongjun Du & Sijie Han & Qingan Qiu, 2022. "Global Progress in Oil and Gas Well Research Using Bibliometric Analysis Based on VOSviewer and CiteSpace," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-27, July.
    17. Zorica Lazić & Aleksandar Đorđević & Albina Gazizulina, 2021. "Improvement of Quality of Higher Education Institutions as a Basis for Improvement of Quality of Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-27, April.
    18. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    19. Secundo, Giustina & Rippa, Pierluigi & Cerchione, Roberto, 2020. "Digital Academic Entrepreneurship: A structured literature review and avenue for a research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    20. Bornmann, Lutz, 2013. "The problem of citation impact assessments for recent publication years in institutional evaluations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 722-729.

    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:128:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04551-y. 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.