IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v94y2013i2d10.1007_s11192-012-0808-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity analysis of research in Natural Sciences, Technology and Clinical Medicine: an input–output model applied in comparison of Top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian countries

Author

Listed:
  • Osmo Kivinen

    (University of Turku)

  • Juha Hedman

    (University of Turku)

  • Päivi Kaipainen

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

The article introduces a relational input–output model for the productivity analysis of university research. The comparative analyses focus on top university research in hard sciences from 4 East Asian countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) and 4 North European countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), universities of which get altogether 95 recognitions in the HEEACT Top 300 rankings in the Natural Sciences (Sci), Technology (Tec) or Clinical Medicine (Med). According to productivity ratings (A0, A, A+, A++), Taiwan receives 10 A++ ratings (Sci 5, Tec 5), Sweden 9 (Sci 4, Med 4, Tec 1) and Hong Kong 9 (Tec 4, Med 2, Sci 1). The smallest numbers of A++ ratings are found in Norway, 1 (Med) and Finland 3 (all in Med). The only university with an A++ rating in the top of all three fields is the National University of Singapore. The Pohang University of Science and Technology (South Korea) and the National Tsing Hua University (Taiwan) are exceptionally productive in Sci and Tec; Karolinska Institutet (Sweden) and the University of Helsinki (Finland) belong to the top in Med. Even though Northern European countries are ranked higher in the ‘knowledge economy indicators’, East Asians fare better by indicators of learning outcomes and by productivity of university research in Natural Sciences and Technology; North European countries are stronger in Clinical Medicine.

Suggested Citation

  • Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Päivi Kaipainen, 2013. "Productivity analysis of research in Natural Sciences, Technology and Clinical Medicine: an input–output model applied in comparison of Top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 683-699, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0808-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0808-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0808-4
    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/s11192-012-0808-4?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. Catherine Dehon & Alice McCathie & Vincenzo Verardi, 2010. "Uncovering excellence in academic rankings: a closer look at the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 515-524, May.
    2. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2011. "A national-scale cross-time analysis of university research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 399-413, May.
    3. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    4. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    5. Răzvan V. Florian, 2007. "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 25-32, July.
    6. Crespi, Gustavo A. & Geuna, Aldo, 2008. "An empirical study of scientific production: A cross country analysis, 1981-2002," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 565-579, May.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2947 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Joseph Macri & Dipendra Sinha, 2006. "Rankings Methodology for International Comparisons of Institutions and Individuals: an Application to Economics in Australia and New Zealand," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 111-156, February.
    9. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 132-140, January.
    10. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Testing the trade‐off between productivity and quality in research activities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(1), pages 132-140, January.
    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. Yong-Ming He & Yu-Long Pei & Bin Ran & Jia Kang & Yu-Ting Song, 2020. "Analysis on the Higher Education Sustainability in China Based on the Comparison between Universities in China and America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Kalle Artukka, 2017. "Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 679-695, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Calabrese, Armando & Capece, Guendalina & Costa, Roberta & Di Pillo, Francesca & Giuffrida, Stefania, 2018. "A ‘power law’ based method to reduce size-related bias in indicators of knowledge performance: An application to university research assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1263-1281.
    5. Pin-Hua Lin & Jong-Rong Chen & Chih-Hai Yang, 2014. "Academic research resources and academic quality: a cross-country analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 109-123, October.
    6. 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.

    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. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Elvira Curiel-Marin & Manuel Torralbo-Rodríguez & Mónica Vallejo-Ruiz, 2018. "Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: an integrative review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2069-2083, September.
    2. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 514-525.
    3. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    4. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero-Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    5. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Kalle Artukka, 2017. "Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 679-695, July.
    6. D. Docampo & D. Egret & L. Cram, 2015. "The effect of university mergers on the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 175-191, July.
    7. Raquel Garde Sanchez & Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar & Antonio Manuel López Hernandez, 2021. "Which Are the Main Factors Influencing Corporate Social Responsibility Information Disclosures on Universities’ Websites," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-23, January.
    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. Domingo Docampo, 2013. "Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 567-587, February.
    10. Alan Peter Matthews, 2012. "South African universities in world rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 675-695, September.
    11. Leo Freyer, 2014. "Robust rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 391-406, August.
    12. Calabrese, Armando & Capece, Guendalina & Costa, Roberta & Di Pillo, Francesca & Giuffrida, Stefania, 2018. "A ‘power law’ based method to reduce size-related bias in indicators of knowledge performance: An application to university research assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1263-1281.
    13. 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.
    14. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    15. Milica Jovanovic & Veljko Jeremic & Gordana Savic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic, 2012. "How does the normalization of data affect the ARWU ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 319-327, November.
    16. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Jose G. Moreno-Torres & Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar & Francisco Herrera, 2011. "A methodology for Institution-Field ranking based on a bidimensional analysis: the IFQ 2 A index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 771-786, September.
    17. Lutz Bornmann & Loet Leydesdorff, 2011. "Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? A new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1954-1962, October.
    18. Domingo Docampo, 2011. "On using the Shanghai ranking to assess the research performance of university systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 77-92, January.
    19. O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2013. "Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 767-777, December.
    20. Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu & Mihai Păunescu & Adrian Miroiu, 2016. "Research-driven classification and ranking in higher education: an empirical appraisal of a Romanian policy experience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 785-805, May.

    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:94:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0808-4. 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.