Change search
Refine search result
1 - 16 of 16
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Ahlgren, Per
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Colliander, Cristian
    Persson, Olle
    Field normalized citation rates, field normalized journal impact and Norwegian weights for allocation of university research funds2012In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 92, no 3, p. 767-780Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We compared three different bibliometric evaluation approaches: two citation-based approaches and one based on manual classification of publishing channels into quality levels. Publication data for two universities was used, and we worked with two levels of analysis: article and department. For the article level, we investigated the predictive power of field normalized citation rates and field normalized journal impact with respect to journal level. The results for the article level show that evaluation of journals based on citation impact correlate rather well with manual classification of journals into quality levels. However, the prediction from field normalized citation rates to journal level was only marginally better than random guessing. At the department level, we studied three different indicators in the context of research fund allocation within universities and the extent to which the three indicators produce different distributions of research funds. It turned out that the three distributions of relative indicator values were very similar, which in turn yields that the corresponding distributions of hypothetical research funds would be very similar.

  • 2.
    Ahlgren, Per
    et al.
    Stockholm University.
    Jarneving, Bo
    Bibliographic coupling, common abstract stems and clustering: a comparison of two document-document similarity approaches in the context of science mapping2008In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 76, no 2, p. 273-290Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 3.
    Ahlgren, Per
    et al.
    Stockholm University.
    Persson, Olle
    Tijssen, Robert
    Geographical distance in bibliometric relations within epistemic communities2013In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 95, no 2, p. 771-784Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Colliander, Cristian
    et al.
    Umea Univ, Dept Sociol, Inforsk, Umea, Sweden.;Umea Univ, Univ Lib, Umea, Sweden..
    Ahlgren, Per
    KTH, School of Education and Communication in Engineering Science (ECE), Department for Library services, Language and ARC, Library, Publication Infrastructure. Uppsala Univ, Dept Stat, Uppsala, Sweden..
    Comparison of publication-level approaches to ex-post citation normalization2019In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 120, no 1, p. 283-300Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper, we compare two sophisticated publication-level approaches to ex-post citation normalization: an item-oriented approach and an approach falling under the general algorithmically constructed classification system approach. Using articles published in core journals in Web of Science (SCIE, SSCI & A&HCI) during 2009 (n=955,639), we first examine, using the measure Proportion explained variation (PEV), to what extent the publication-level approaches can explain and correct for variation in the citation distribution that stems from subject matter heterogeneity. We then, for the subset of articles from life science and biomedicine (n=456,045), gauge the fairness of the normalization approaches with respect to their ability to identify highly cited articles when subject area is factored out. This is done by utilizing information from publication-level MeSH classifications to create high quality subject matter baselines and by using the measure Deviations from expectations (DE). The results show that the item-oriented approach had the best performance regarding PEV. For DE, only the most fine-grained clustering solution could compete with the item-oriented approach. However, the item-oriented approach performed better when cited references were heavily weighted in the similarity calculations.

  • 5. Colliander, Cristian
    et al.
    Ahlgren, Per
    Stockholm University.
    Experimental comparison of first and second-order similarities in a scientometric context2012In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 90, no 2, p. 675-685Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 6.
    Ding, Jielan
    et al.
    Chinese Acad Sci, Natl Sci Lib, Beijing 100190, Peoples R China.;Univ Chinese Acad Sci, 19A Yuquan Rd, Beijing 100049, Peoples R China..
    Ahlgren, Per
    KTH, School of Education and Communication in Engineering Science (ECE), Department for Library services, Language and ARC, Library, Publication Infrastructure. National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China.
    Yang, Liying
    Chinese Acad Sci, Natl Sci Lib, Beijing 100190, Peoples R China..
    Yue, Ting
    Chinese Acad Sci, Natl Sci Lib, Beijing 100190, Peoples R China.;Univ Chinese Acad Sci, 19A Yuquan Rd, Beijing 100049, Peoples R China..
    Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels2018In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 116, no 3, p. 1817-1852Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper analyzes, using Web of Science publications and two time periods (2004-2006 and 2014-2016), the disciplinary structures in the three prestigious journals Nature, Science and PNAS, compared with two baselines: Non-NSP_Multi (multidisciplinary publications that have other source journals than Nature, Science and PNAS), and Non-Multi (publications assigned to other categories than Multidisciplinary). We analyze the profiles at two levels, journal and country. The results for the journal level show that for Nature and Science, the publications are considerably less concentrated to certain disciplines compared to PNAS. Biology is the dominant discipline for all the three journals. Nature and Science have similar publication shares in Medicine, Geosciences, Physics, Space science, and Chemistry. The publications of PNAS are highly concentrated to two disciplines: Biology and Medicine. Compared with Non-NSP_Multi and Non-Multi, the shares of Biology in NSP journals are higher, whereas the share of Medicine is lower. At the country level, 14 countries are included, among them the five BRICS countries. With respect to the NSP journals, the emphasis disciplines (in terms of world share of publications) of most countries other than USA are the disciplines in which USA has its weakest performance. The disciplinary structures of USA and of most of the other studied countries therefore tend to be different. Regarding Non-NSP_Multi and Non-Multi, the shapes of the disciplinary structures of the 14 countries can be roughly grouped into three groups, while there are more types of shapes for the countries in the NSP journals. For all five units of analysis, the discipline structures of most countries generally change only slightly between different time periods. The structures of some BRICS countries, however, change to a relatively large extent.

  • 7.
    Hallonsten, Olof
    University of Gothenburg.
    How expensive is Big Science?: Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities2014In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 100, no 2, p. 483-496Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Although the nuclear era and the Cold War superpower competition have long since passed, governments are still investing in Big Science, although these large facilities are nowadays mostly geared towards areas of use closer to utility. Investments in Big Science are also motivated not only by promises of scientific breakthroughs but also by expectations (and demands) of measurable impact, and with an emerging global market of competing user-oriented Big Science facilities, quantitative measures of productivity and quality have become mainstream. Among these are rather simple and one-sided publication counts. This article uses publication counts and figures of expenditure for three cases that are disparate but all represent the state-of-the-art of Big Science of their times, discussing at depth the problems of using simple publication counts as a measure of performance in science. Showing, quite trivially, that Big Science is very expensive, the article also shows the absurd consequences of consistently using simple publication counts to display productivity and quality of Big Science, and concludes that such measures should be deemed irrelevant for analyses on the level of organizations in science and replaced by qualitative assessment of the content of the science produced.

  • 8.
    Hallonsten, Olof
    Department for Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg.
    Introducing 'facilitymetrics': A first review and analysis of commonly used measures of scientific leadership among synchrotron radiation facilities worldwide2013In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 96, no 2, p. 497-513Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Big Science accelerator complexes are no longer mere tools for nuclear and particle physics, but modern-day experimental resources for a wide range of natural sciences and often named instrumental to scientific and technological development for innovation and economic growth. Facilities compete on a global market to attract the best users and facilitate the best science, and advertise the achievement of their users as markers of quality and productivity. Thus a need has risen for (quantitative) quality assessment of science on the level of facilities. In this article, we examine some quantitative performance measurements frequently used by facilities to display quality: technical reliability, competition for access, and publication records. We report data from the world's three largest synchrotron radiation facilities from the years 2004-2010, and discuss their meaning and significance by placing them in proper context. While we argue that quality is not possible to completely capture in these quantitative metrics, we acknowledge their apparent importance and, hence, we introduce and propose facilitymetrics as a new feature of the study of modern big science, and as a new empirical focus for scientometrical study, in the hope that future studies can contribute to a deeper, much-needed analysis of the topic.

  • 9. Heidler, Richard
    et al.
    Hallonsten, Olof
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, History of Science, Technology and Environment. Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Sweden.
    Qualifying the performance evaluation of Big Science beyond productivity, impact and costs2015In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 104, no 1, p. 295-312Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The use of quantitative performance measures to evaluate the productivity, impact and quality of research has spread to almost all parts of public R&D systems, including Big Science where traditional measures of technical reliability of instruments and user oversub- scription have been joined by publication counts to assess scientific productivity. But such performance assessment has been shown to lead to absurdities, as the calculated average cost of single journal publications easily may reach hundreds of millions of dollars. In this article, the issue of productivity and impact is therefore further qualified by the use of additional measures such as the immediacy index as well as network analysis to evaluate qualitative aspects of the impact of contemporary Big Science labs. Connecting to previous work within what has been called ‘‘facilitymetrics’’, the article continues the search for relevant biblio- metric measures of the performance of Big Science labs with the use of a case study of a recently opened facility that is advertised as contributing to ‘‘breakthrough’’ research, by using several more measures and thus qualifying the topic of performance evaluation in contem- porary Big Science beyond simple counts of publications, citations, and costs. 

  • 10.
    Larsen, Katarina
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), History of Science and Technology.
    Knowledge network hubs and measures of research impact, science structure, and publication output in nanostructured solar cell research2008In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 74, no 1, p. 123-142Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study on co-authorship networks in the area of nanostructured solar cells aims to contribute to a further understanding of the use of research evaluation measures of science output, impact and structure in an emerging research field. The study incorporates quantitative bibliometric methods of analysis and social network analysis in combination with a qualitative case study research approach. Conclusions drawn from the results emphasise, firstly, the importance of distinguishing between early and later phases of the evolution of a novel research field, and secondly, the application of a systemic view on learning processes and knowledge diffusion in a science-based technology field.

  • 11.
    Sandström, Ulf
    Linköping University, Dept. ISAK, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden.
    Research Quality and Diversity of Funding: A Model for Relating Research Money to Output of Research2009In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 72, no 2, p. 341-349Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We analyze the relation between funding and output using bibliometric methods with field normalized data. Our approach is to connect individual researcher data on funding from Swedish university databases to data on incoming grants using the specific personal ID-number. Data on funding include the person responsible for the grant. All types of research income are considered in the analysis yielding a project database with a high level of precision. Results show that productivity can be explained by background variables, but that quality of research is more or less un-related to background variables.

  • 12.
    Sandström, Ulf
    et al.
    KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Industrial Economics and Management (Dept.), Industrial Dynamics.
    Hällsten, Martin
    Persistent nepotism in peer-review2008In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 74, no 2, p. 175-189Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In a replication of the high-profile contribution by Wenneras and Wold on grant peer-review, we investigate new applications processed by the medical research council in Sweden. Introducing a normalisation method for ranking applications that takes into account the differences between committees, we also use a normalisation of bibliometric measures by field. Finally, we perform a regression analysis with interaction effects. Our results indicate that female principal investigators (PIs) receive a bonus of 10% on scores, in relation to their male colleagues. However, male and female PIs having a reviewer affiliation collect an even higher bonus, approximately 15%. Nepotism seems to be a persistent problem in the Swedish grant peer review system.

  • 13.
    Sriwannawit, Pranpreya
    et al.
    KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Industrial Economics and Management (Dept.).
    Sandström, Ulf
    KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Industrial Economics and Management (Dept.). Orebro University, Sweden.
    Large-scale bibliometric review of diffusion research2015In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 102, no 2, p. 1615-1645Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Despite the fact that diffusion research has existed for more than a century, a quantitative review covering this subject in a broad and general context is still lacking. This article reviews diffusion research by providing an extensive bibliometric and clustering analysis. In total, we identified thirteen clusters comprising 6,811 publications over the period of 2002–2011, and thereby describe the characteristics of diffusion research in an extensive and general way based on quantitative bibliometric methods. The analysis reveals that diffusion research is highly interdisciplinary in character, involving several disciplines from ethnology to economics, with many overlapping research trails. The concluding section indicates that diffusion research seems to be data driven and relies heavily on solely empirical studies. Consequently, influential publications rely on empirical data that support and change theories in modest ways only. In this contribution, we propose a review method that produces a fairly good overview of the research area and which can be applied to any knowledge field to replace or complement the traditional literature review.

  • 14. Tong, S.
    et al.
    Ahlgren, Per
    KTH, School of Education and Communication in Engineering Science (ECE), Department for Library services, Language and ARC, Library, Publication Infrastructure.
    Evolution of three Nobel Prize themes and a Nobel snub theme in chemistry: a bibliometric study with focus on international collaboration2017In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 112, no 1, p. 75-90Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this study, three chemistry research themes closely associated with the Nobel Prize are bibliometrically analyzed—Ribozyme, Ozone and Fullerene—as well as a research theme in chemistry not associated with the Nobel Prize (a Nobel snub theme): Brunauer–Emmett–Teller equation. We analyze, based on an algorithmically constructed publication-level classification system, the evolution of the four themes with respect to publication volume and international collaboration, using two datasets, one of them a subset of highly cited publications, for each considered time period. The focus of the study is on international collaboration, where co-occurrence of country names in publications is used as a proxy for international collaboration. For all four themes, especially for Brunauer–Emmett–Teller equation, the publication volumes increase considerably from the earliest period to the later periods. The international collaboration rate shows an increasing trend for each theme. For Ozone, Fullerene and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller equation, the international collaboration rate tend to be higher for the highly cited publications compared to full datasets. With regard to the evolution of number of countries per international publication and per highly cited international publication, a vast majority of the distributions are positively skewed, with a large share of publications with two countries. With respect to the last four periods of the study, the concentration to two countries per publication is more pronounced for the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller equation theme compared to the three Nobel Prize themes. © 2017, The Author(s).

  • 15. van den Besselaar, Peter
    et al.
    Sandström, Ulf
    KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Industrial Economics and Management (Dept.). Örebro University, Sweden .
    Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study2016In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 106, no 1, p. 143-162Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We take up the issue of performance differences between male and female researchers, and investigate the change of performance differences during the early career. In a previous paper it was shown that among starting researchers gendered performance differences seem small to non-existent (Van Arensbergen et al. 2012). If the differences do not occur in the early career anymore, they may emerge in a later period, or may remain absent. In this paper we use the same sample of male and female researchers, but now compare performance levels about 10 years later. We use various performance indicators: full/fractional counted productivity, citation impact, and relative citation impact in terms of the share of papers in the top 10 % highly cited papers. After the 10 years period, productivity of male researchers has grown faster than of female researcher, but the field normalized (relative) citation impact indicators of male and female researchers remain about equal. Furthermore, performance data do explain to a certain extent why male careers in our sample develop much faster than female researchers' careers; but controlling for performance differences, we find that gender is an important determinant too. Consequently, the process of hiring academic staff still remains biased.

  • 16.
    van den Besselaar, Peter
    et al.
    Nederländerna.
    Sandström, Ulf
    KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Industrial Economics and Management (Dept.), Sustainability and Industrial Dynamics.
    Schiffbaenker, Hélène
    Österrike.
    Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports2018In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 118, no 1, p. 313-329Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Peer and panel review are the dominant forms of grant decision-making, despite its serious weaknesses as shown by many studies. This paper contributes to the understanding of the grant selection process through a linguistic analysis of the review reports. We reconstruct in that way several aspects of the evaluation and selection process: what dimensions of the proposal are discussed during the process and how, and what distinguishes between the successful and non-successful applications? We combine the linguistic findings with interviews with panel members and with bibliometric performance scores of applicants. The former gives the context, and the latter helps to interpret the linguistic findings. The analysis shows that the performance of the applicant and the content of the proposed study are assessed with the same categories, suggesting that the panelists actually do not make a difference between past performance and promising new research ideas. The analysis also suggests that the panels focus on rejecting the applications by searching for weak points, and not on finding the high-risk/high-gain groundbreaking ideas that may be in the proposal. This may easily result in sub-optimal selections, in low predictive validity, and in bias.

1 - 16 of 16
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf