The F-measure for Research Priority

doi:10.2478/jdis-2018-0001

Abstract

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 words: Activity index, Harmonic mean, F-measure, Research policy, Endogenous and exogenous factors

Ronald, Rousseau. "The F-measure for Research Priority." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.3, no.1, 2018, pp.1-18. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2018-0001

References

[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.
[2]	Balassa B. (1965). Trade liberalisation and ‘revealed’ comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, 33, 99-123.
[3]	Bhattacharya S. (1997). Cross-national comparison of frontier areas of research in physics using bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 40(3), 385-405.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[25]	Zhou P., Thijs B., & Gl?nzel W. (2009). Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output. Scientometrics, 81(3), 839-857.