IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v78y2009i1d10.1007_s11192-008-2109-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfgang Glänzel

    (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
    Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

  • Bart Thijs

    (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

  • András Schubert

    (Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

  • Koenraad Debackere

    (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Abstract

A common problem in comparative bibliometric studies at the meso and micro level is the differentiation and specialisation of research profiles of the objects of analysis at lower levels of aggregation. Already the institutional level requires the application of more sophisticated techniques than customary in evaluation of national research performance. In this study institutional profile clusters are used to examine which level of the hierarchical subject-classification should preferably be used to build subject-normalised citation indicators. It is shown that a set of properly normalised indicators can serve as a basis of comparative assessment within and even among different clusters, provided that their profiles still overlap and such comparison is thus meaningful. On the basis of 24 selected European universities, a new version of relational charts is presented for the comparative assessment of citation impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs & András Schubert & Koenraad Debackere, 2009. "Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 165-188, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:78:y:2009:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-008-2109-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-2109-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-008-2109-5
    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/s11192-008-2109-5?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. Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2008. "A structural analysis of publication profiles for the classification of European research institutes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 223-236, February.
    2. Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzela, 2009. "A structural analysis of benchmarks on different bibliometrical indicators for European research institutes based on their research profile," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 377-388, May.
    3. Schubert, András & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2007. "A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 179-184.
    4. Jonathan Adams & Karen Gurney & Louise Jackson, 2008. "Calibrating the zoom — a test of Zitt’s hypothesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(1), pages 81-95, April.
    5. Michel Zitt & Suzy Ramanana-Rahary & Elise Bassecoulard, 2005. "Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(2), pages 373-401, April.
    6. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 357-367, March.
    7. Derek De Solla Price, 1976. "A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 27(5), pages 292-306, September.
    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. Michel Zitt, 2015. "Meso-level retrieval: IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2223-2245, March.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs, 2018. "The role of baseline granularity for benchmarking citation impact. The case of CSS profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 521-536, July.
    3. Vaccario, Giacomo & Medo, Matúš & Wider, Nicolas & Mariani, Manuel Sebastian, 2017. "Quantifying and suppressing ranking bias in a large citation network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 766-782.
    4. Dunaiski, Marcel & Geldenhuys, Jaco & Visser, Willem, 2019. "On the interplay between normalisation, bias, and performance of paper impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 270-290.
    5. Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2011. "The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 385-397, August.
    6. Ludo Waltman & Erjia Yan & Nees Jan Eck, 2011. "A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 301-314, October.
    7. Tokmachev, Andrey M., 2023. "Hidden scales in statistics of citation indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    8. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    9. Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz & Zhou, Ping, 2016. "Construction of a pragmatic base line for journal classifications and maps based on aggregated journal-journal citation relations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 902-918.
    10. Rene Belderbos & Vincent Van Roy & Bart Leten & Bart Thijs, 2014. "Academic Research Strengths and Multinational Firms' Foreign R&D Location Decisions: Evidence from R&D Investments in European Regions," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(4), pages 920-942, April.
    11. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    12. Mike Thelwall, 2019. "The influence of highly cited papers on field normalised indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 519-537, February.
    13. Theresa Velden & Asif-ul Haque & Carl Lagoze, 2010. "A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks: mesoscopic analysis and interpretation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 219-242, October.
    14. P. Vinkler, 2010. "Indicators are the essence of scientometrics and bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 861-866, December.
    15. Wolfgang Glänzel, 2009. "The multi-dimensionality of journal impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(2), pages 355-374, February.
    16. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2011. "Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 360-368.
    17. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2013. "Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 699-716, September.
    18. Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzela, 2009. "A structural analysis of benchmarks on different bibliometrical indicators for European research institutes based on their research profile," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 377-388, May.
    19. Dunaiski, Marcel & Geldenhuys, Jaco & Visser, Willem, 2019. "Globalised vs averaged: Bias and ranking performance on the author level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 299-313.
    20. Bertoli-Barsotti, Lucio & Lando, Tommaso, 2015. "On a formula for the h-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 762-776.

    More about this item

    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:78:y:2009:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-008-2109-5. 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.