Please wait a minute...
Journal of Data and Information Science  2018, Vol. 3 Issue (1): 1-18    DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2018-0001
Research Paper     
The F-measure for Research Priority
Ronald Rousseau()
University of Antwerp, Faculty of Social Sciences, B-2020 Antwerp, Belgium & KU Leuven, Facultair Onderzoekscentrum ECOOM, Naamsestraat 61, Leuven B-3000, Belgium
Download: PDF (590 KB)      HTML  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Purpose: In this contribution we continue our investigations related to the activity index (AI) and its formal analogs. We try to replace the AI by an indicator which is better suited for policy applications.

Design/methodology/approach: We point out that fluctuations in the value of the AI for a given country and domain are never the result of that country’s policy with respect to that domain alone because there are exogenous factors at play. For this reason we introduce the F-measure. This F-measure is nothing but the harmonic mean of the country’s share in the world’s publication output in the given domain and the given domain’s share in the country’s publication output.

Findings: The F-measure does not suffer from the problems the AI does.

Research limitations: The indicator is not yet fully tested in real cases.

R&D policy management: In policy considerations, the AI should better be replaced by the F-measure as this measure can better show the results of science policy measures (which the AI cannot as it depends on exogenous factors).

Originality/value: We provide an original solution for a problem that is not fully realized by policy makers.



Key wordsActivity index      Harmonic mean      F-measure      Research policy      Endogenous and exogenous factors     
Published: 03 March 2010
Corresponding Authors: Rousseau Ronald     E-mail: ronald.rousseau@uantwerpen.be;ronald.rousseau@kuleuven.be
Cite this article:

Ronald Rousseau. The F-measure for Research Priority. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(1): 1-18.

URL:

http://manu47.magtech.com.cn/Jwk3_jdis/10.2478/jdis-2018-0001     OR     http://manu47.magtech.com.cn/Jwk3_jdis/Y2018/V3/I1/1

Original situation New situation: Country 2 publishes 17,000
articles less in other domains
Country 1 Country 2 Country 1 Country 2
OCD 200 1,400 200 1,400
OD 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
OC 12,000 100,000 12,000 83,000
OW 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,583,000 1,583,000
AI 5.33 4.48 5.28 5.34
F 0.0235 0.0267 0.0235 0.0318
Table 1 Calculations related to Example A; the indicator F is introduced further on.
Basic Increase in OCD Decrease in OCD
OCD 190 200 180
OD 200 210 190
OC 200 210 190
OW 400 410 390
AI 1.9 1.859 1.945
F 0.95 0.9524 0.9474
Table 2 Data and calculations related to Example B.
Figure 1. Graph of the function F(x,y); origin is nearest to the viewer.
Disciplines Journal articles Book chapters Edited books Monographs Proceedings
papers
Row totals
VABB-non-WoS VABB-WoS VABB VABB VABB VABB-WoS VABB-Non-WoS
Archaeology 176 133 40 6 11 12 18 396
Art History 295 150 135 38 12 22 28 680
Communication Studies 425 170 94 16 3 19 1 728
History 773 193 233 52 28 0 19 1,298
Law 4,018 144 320 89 55 11 20 4,657
Linguistics 908 457 511 135 59 54 83 2,207
Literature 631 143 376 87 36 0 31 1,304
Philosophy 786 603 279 42 30 36 9 1,785
Theology 610 85 410 85 53 1 4 1,248
Column totals 8,622 2,078 2,398 550 287 155 213 14,303
Table 3 Flemish Humanities publications (2000-2009) in the VABB.
Disciplines Journal articles Book chapters Edited books Monographs Proceedings papers
VABB-non-WoS VABB-WoS VABB VABB VABB VABB-WoS VABB-Non-WoS
Archaeology 0.737 2.312 0.602 0.394 1.384 2.796 3.052
Art History 0.720 1.518 1.184 1.453 0.879 2.985 2.765
Communication Studies 0.968 1.607 0.770 0.572 0.205 2.408 0.092
History 0.988 1.023 1.071 1.042 1.075 0.000 0.983
Law 1.431 0.213 0.410 0.497 0.589 0.218 0.288
Linguistics 0.682 1.425 1.381 1.591 1.332 2.258 2.525
Literature 0.803 0.755 1.720 1.735 1.376 0.000 1.596
Philosophy 0.730 2.325 0.932 0.612 0.838 1.861 0.339
Theology 0.811 0.469 1.960 1.771 2.116 0.074 0.215
Table 4 Values according to the AI-formula for the data shown in Table 3.
Disciplines Journal articles Book chapters Edited books Monographs Proceedings papers
VABB-non-WoS VABB-WoS VABB VABB VABB VABB-WoS VABB-Non-WoS
Archaeology 0.039 0.108 0.029 0.013 0.032 0.044 0.059
Art History 0.063 0.109 0.088 0.062 0.025 0.053 0.063
Communication Studies 0.091 0.121 0.060 0.025 0.006 0.043 0.002
History 0.156 0.114 0.126 0.056 0.035 0.000 0.025
Law 0.605 0.043 0.091 0.034 0.022 0.005 0.008
Linguistics 0.168 0.213 0.222 0.098 0.047 0.046 0.069
Literature 0.127 0.085 0.203 0.094 0.045 0.000 0.041
Philosophy 0.151 0.312 0.133 0.036 0.029 0.037 0.009
Theology 0.124 0.051 0.225 0.095 0.069 0.001 0.005
Table 5 Values according to the F-measure for the data shown in Table 3.
Pearson Spearman
PUB-AI PUB-F AI-F PUB-AI PUB-F AI-F
Journal articles VABB-non-WoS 0.873 0.998 0.872 0.183 0.983 0.267
Journal articles VABB-WoS 0.521 0.964 0.704 0.431 0.470 0.750
Book chapters VABB 0.599 0.922 0.852 0.633 0.933 0.783
Edited books VABB 0.621 0.789 0.965 0.500 0.683 0.933
Monographs VABB 0.461 0.645 0.961 0.233 0.533 0.867
Proceedings papers VABB-WoS 0.631 0.724 0.990 0.731 0.849 0.950
Proceedings papers VABB-Non-WoS 0.595 0.734 0.979 0.633 0.800 0.933
Table 6 Correlation values.
[1]   Aksnes D.W., van Leeuwen T.N., & Sivertsen G. (2014). The effect of booming countries on changes in the relative specialization index (RSI) on country level. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1391-1401.
doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1245-3
[2]   Balassa B. (1965). Trade liberalisation and ‘revealed’ comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, 33, 99-123.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
[3]   Bhattacharya S. (1997). Cross-national comparison of frontier areas of research in physics using bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 40(3), 385-405.
doi: 10.1007/BF02459288
[4]   Bouyssou D., &Marchant T. (2011). Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1761-1769.
doi: 10.1002/asi.21544
[5]   Chen G., & Xiao, L. (2016). Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 212-223.
doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.006
[6]   Egghe L., &Rousseau R. (2002). A general framework for general impact indicators. TheCanadian Journal of Information and Library Science / La revue canadienne des sciences de l’information et de bibliothéconomie, 27(1), 29-48.
[7]   Engels T.C.E., Ossenblok T.L.B., & Spruyt E.H.J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000-2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373-390.
doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2
[8]   Frame J.D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia, 2, 143-148.
[9]   Gl?nzel W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(2)121-150.
[10]   Guan J.C., &Gao X. (2008). Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 357-379.
doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1871-0
[11]   Hu X.J., &Rousseau R. (2009). A comparative study of the difference in research performancein biomedical fields among selected Western and Asian countries. Scientometrics, 81(2), 475-491.
[12]   Lamirel J.C. (2012). A new approach for automatizing the analysis of research topics dynamics: Application to optoelectronics research. Scientometrics, 93(1), 155-166.
doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0771-0
[13]   Li F., Miao Y.J., & Ding J. (2015). Tracking the development of disciplinary structure in China’s top research universities (1998-2013). Research Evaluation, 24(3), 312-324.
doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv013
[14]   Manning C.D., Raghavan P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval..Cambridge: University Press.
[15]   Nagpaul P.S., &Sharma L. (1995). Science in the eighties: A typology of countries based oninter-field priorities. Scientometrics, 34(2), 263-283.
[16]   Ramakrishnan J., &Thavamani K. (2015). Indian contributions to the field of leptospirosis (2006-2013): A bibliometric study. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and InformationManagement, 9(2), 235-249.
[17]   Rousseau R. (2012). Thoughts about the activity index and its formal analogues. ISSI Newsletter, 8(4), 73-75.
[18]   Rousseau R., &Yang L.Y. (2012). Reflections on the activity index and related indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 413-421.
doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.004
[19]   Sangam S.L., Arali U.B., Patil C.G., & Rousseau R. (2017). Growth of the hepatitis literature over the period 1976-2015: What can the relative priority index teach us?Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics, and Scientometrics (WIS) and 18th COLLNET Meeting, July 2017, Canterbury.
[20]   Schubert A., &Braun T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparativeassessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5-6), 281-291.
[21]   Stare J., &Kej?ar N. (2014). On standardization of the activity index. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 503-507.
doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.004
[22]   Thijs B., &Gl?nzel W. (2008). A structural analysis of publication profiles for the classification of European research institutes. Scientometrics, 74(2), 223-236.
doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-0214-0
[23]   Vinkler P. (2010). The evaluation of research by Scientometric indicators. Oxford: Chandos.
[24]   Zhang L., Rousseau R., & Gl?nzel W. (2011). Document-type country profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(7), 1403-1411.
[1] Stephen Carley, Alan L. Porter, Ismael Rafols, Loet Leydesdorff. Visualization of Disciplinary Profiles: Enhanced Science Overlay Maps[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 2(3): 68-111.