Correlation between quality and quantity in scientific production: A case study of Iranian organizations from 1997 to 2006

Hayati, Zouhayr; Ebrahimy, Saeideh

doi:10.1007/s11192-009-2094-3

Cited by 30 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…749 (Chang 2008;Hayati and Ebrahimy 2009). This study also regards research awards as a qualitative index to measure the research quality of scholars.…”

Section: Research Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks

Liao

2010

Scientometrics

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Better research quality not only inspires scholars to continue their research, but also increases the possibility of higher research budgets from sponsors. Given the importance of research quality, this study proposes that utilizing social capital (i.e., research collaboration) might be a promising avenue to achieve better research quality. In addition, as every scholar has his or her own expertise and knowledge, the diversity of collaborating members might be an extra resource for reinforcing research quality. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of research collaboration and member diversity on research quality, including the number of citations, the impact factor, and the size of the research award. To explore unknown associations, the author adopts two data sources, that is, the Social Science Citation Index database and academic database of a university, to verify the hypotheses. The results show that a higher intensity at which scholars are embedded in a collaboration network, results in higher research quality. However, member diversity does not seem to be a major concern during the organization of a research group. Research quality is not affected, regardless of whether a scholar collaborates with different or the same co-authors.

show abstract

“…749 (Chang 2008;Hayati and Ebrahimy 2009). This study also regards research awards as a qualitative index to measure the research quality of scholars.…”

Section: Research Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks

Liao

2010

Scientometrics

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This statistic means that the independent variables in the model-times of collaboration ("au.ttl"), number of unique Vietnamese co-authors ("au.vn") and and number of solo publications ("au.solo")-explain 85.81% of the change of total publications ("ttlitems"). The relationships between these variables are depicted in the following equation: ttlitems = 0.824 + 0.115 × au.ttl + 0.134 × au.vn + 1.067 × au.solo (1) It can be inferred from Equation (1) that, controlling for other factors, an increase of one unit of the number of times of collaborations would result in the number of scientists' publications rising by 0.115 units on average. Similarly, one extra unit of domestic collaborator would mean a growth of 0.134 units in average scientific output.…”

Section: Interceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has long been recognized that scientific research has prospered in some places more than others, namely at universities on a national scale, and in developed countries on a global scale [1,2]. This is not a surprise, as the scholar is often required to devote time and energy to research in order to secure an academic position in today's competitive scientific world.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nemo Solus Satis Sapit: Trends of Research Collaborations in the Vietnamese Social Sciences, Observing 2008–2017 Scopus Data

Vuong

et al. 2017

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Nemo solus satis sapit"-no one can be wise enough on his own. This is particularly true when it comes to collaborations in scientific research. Concerns over this issue in Vietnam, a developing country with limited academic resources, led to an in-depth study on Vietnamese social science research, using Google Scholar and Scopus, during 2008-2017. The results showed that more than 90% of scientists had worked with colleagues to publish, and they had collaborated 13 times on average during the time limit of the data sample. These collaborations, both domestic and international, mildly boosted author performance. On the other hand, the modest number of publications by Vietnamese authors was reportedly linked to Vietnamese social scientists' heavy reliance on collaborative work as non-leading co-authors: for an entire decade (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017), the average author assumes the leading role merely in two articles, and hardly ever published alone. This implies that policy-makers ought to consider promoting institutional collaborations while also encouraging authors to acquire the experience of publishing solo.

show abstract

“…In contrast, some studies argue that scientists who publish more articles may be more visible to other members of scientific community and such scientists may thus receive more citations-an indication of cumulative effects in science (Merton 1968). There is some evidence in the literature indicating that a higher number of articles results in an increased number of citations in general (Feist 1997;Hayati and Ebrahimy 2009). Following this line of research, article counts can thus be considered as a proxy for the visibility of researchers (Aaltojärvi et al 2008;Bar-Ilan et al 2012).…”

Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

What determines researchers’ scientific impact? A case study of Quebec researchers

Mirnezami¹,

Beaudry²,

Larivière³

2015

Science and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a data set integrating information about researchers' funding and publication in the province of Quebec (Canada), this paper intends to identify the main determinants of citation counts as one measure of research impact. Using two-stage least square regressions to control for endogeneity, the results confirm the significant and positive relationship between the number of articles and citation counts. Our results also show that scientists with more articles in higher impact factor journals generally receive more citations and so do scientists who publish with a larger team of authors. Hence the greater visibility provided by a more prolific scientific production, better journals, and more co-authors, all contribute to increasing the perceived impact of articles. The paper also shows that male and female receive the same number of citations, all else being equal. In most of domains, the amount of funding does not have a significant effect on the citation counts. These results suggest that the most important 2 determinants of researchers' citations are the journals in which they publish, as well the collaborative nature of their research.

show abstract

Correlation between quality and quantity in scientific production: A case study of Iranian organizations from 1997 to 2006

Cited by 30 publications

References 9 publications

How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks

How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks

Nemo Solus Satis Sapit: Trends of Research Collaborations in the Vietnamese Social Sciences, Observing 2008–2017 Scopus Data

What determines researchers’ scientific impact? A case study of Quebec researchers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About