An iCE map approach to evaluate performance and efficiency of scientific production of countries

Prathap, Gangan

doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0192-x

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 Despite the small relative size, the SNSF is a typical national science funding body comparable to national funding organizations in other countries. However, Switzerland, and thus also the SNSF, is exceptional in that it steadily takes the top spot in international bibliometric rankings with the highest number of citations per researcher (Prathap 2010). …”

Section: The Swiss National Science Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review practices: a content analysis of external reviews in science funding

Reinhart¹

2010

Res. Eval.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The primary purpose of this study is to open up the black box of peer review and to increase its transparency, understanding, and credibility. To this end, two arguments will be presented: First, epistemic and social aspects of peer review procedures are inseparable and mutually constitutive. Second, a content analysis of written reviews indicates that certain elements of peer culture from the 17 th century are still active in the scientific community. These arguments are illustrated by a case study on the peer review practices of a national funding institution, the Swiss National Science Foundation. Based on the case study and the two arguments it will be concluded more generally that peer review procedures show a distinctive specificity to the reviewed objects (e.g. papers or proposals), the organisational format (e.g. panels or external reviewers), or the surrounding context (e.g. disciplinary or interdisciplinary). Scientists, administrators, and the public may conclude that appraising peer review procedures should not be done by way of general principals but should be based on concrete factual knowledge on the specific process under discussion.3

show abstract

Section: The Swiss National Science Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review practices: a content analysis of external reviews in science funding

Reinhart¹

2010

Res. Eval.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The evaluation of research often involves making comparisons between the outputs from different actorscountries [1][2][3] , regions [4][5][6][7][8] , universities [9][10][11][12] , institutes and departments [13][14][15] , even persons [16][17][18] on a number of criteria. These typically include the numbers of papers and some of their parameters, usually including numbers of citations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definition of Cancer Research: Journals, Titles, Abstracts or Keywords?

Lewison

2011

DJLIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three versions of a 'filter' used to identify papers on cancer research, as defined by Cancer Research, UK, and interpreted by four experts, have been compared. The first filter was based only on specialist journals and had unacceptably low recall. The second filter was based both on journals and on title words, and had both precision and recall above 0.9. The third filter was based additionally on words in the abstract and/or keywords provided in the paper: it improved the recall to almost unity but the precision was severely degraded, with many false positives. The three filter versions were compared in terms of the outputs of 15 countries in the Web of Science in recent years, and in some instances, gave differing indicators of their performance (numbers of papers and citations) which could give conflicting messages for science policy.

show abstract

“…Glanzel (2008) had shown ''empirically'' that (C 2 /P) 1/3 has an extremely good correlation with h. Schubert and Glanzel (2007) actually used journals as an example of this mathematical relationship among the indicators. Indeed, this led Prathap (2009Prathap ( , 2010 to demonstrate that this can serve as a mock h-index that is an excellent and possibly more useful measure of performance or influence. Various studies with large datasets show that this relationship was very stable and further that p actually correlated better with quality (i) and quantity (C) than h did.…”

Section: Eigenfactor Versus Impact Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

The iCE approach for journal evaluation

Prathap

2010

Scientometrics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has shown that simple graphical representations of research performance can be obtained using two-dimensional maps based on impact (i) and citations (C). The product of impact and citations leads to an energy term (E). Indeed, using E as the third coordinate, three-dimensional landscape maps can be prepared. In this paper, instead of using the traditional impact factor and total citations received for journal evaluation, Article Influence TM and Eigenfactor TM are used as substitutes. Article Influence becomes a measure of quality (i.e. a proxy for impact factor) and Eigenfactor is a proxy for size/ quantity (like citations) and taken together, the product is an energy-like term. This can be used to measure the influence/prestige of a journal. It is also possible to propose a p-factor (where p = E 1/3 ) as an alternative measure of the prestige or prominence of a journal which plays the equivalent role of the h-index.

show abstract

An iCE map approach to evaluate performance and efficiency of scientific production of countries

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Peer review practices: a content analysis of external reviews in science funding

Peer review practices: a content analysis of external reviews in science funding

Definition of Cancer Research: Journals, Titles, Abstracts or Keywords?

The iCE approach for journal evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About