INDICATORS OF

QUALITY??

OUTLINE

INDICATORS OF QUALITY??

• Methods of quantitative evaluation• University level – Macro bibliometric analysis• Individual level – Micro bibliometric analysis

Lorna WildgaardRoyal School of Library and Information ScienceLorna.wildgaard@hum.ku.dkKildekritik, F2016

STUDY OF QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS OF:

informetrics

bibliometrics

scientometrics

webometrics

cybermetrics

© Björneborn

altmetrics

Information in any form by any social group

Production, dissemination & use of recorded information

Science as a discipline or economic activity

Politico-economical aspects.

Construction & use of information resources & tech. on the internet

Web documents, text & multi-media, blogs, tags, wikis..

Dissemination, use & online activity of scholarly content

SO METRICS ARE:

”The application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of communication.”Pritchard, A (1969), Journal of Documentation, 25(4):348-9

e=18

h=8

m=1

=3 CPP=18

t=4

PERCENT DISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION

C=

Nm = Number of multi-authored papers in the discipline, eg. 22929Ns=Number of single authored papers in the discipline, eg. 9325

C= = 0.71 * 100 = 71%

S c (i) = γ (Y (now) − Y (i) + 1)−∗ δ |C(i)|∗

Weighted citation score of an article

Actual Year minus publication year

Citation count

Coefficient set at 4, i.e. for an article published during the current year, its citations account four times

WHAT IS A PUBLICATION?

A scholarly publication is a an expression of the state of the researcher at a particular time (Price 1970)….the product of scientific research (Cawkell 1976; Lazarev 1996)….what consitutes a publication is different in the scientific disciplines (Castellini 2014; Hicks 2012; Tinkler 2011; Frandsen & Nicolaisen 2011)….different publication types indicate different methodologies (Grant & Booth 2009;Dzombak 2013)….Publications should be conceptualized as a discrete set of objects so they can be counted in aggregate (Skupin 2009)….output in a citation index (Antonakis & Lalive (2008).

What constitutes a ”publication” should be clearly defined to ensure representative operationalization in the indicator and the extraction of meaningful relationships (Wouters 1999; Skupin 2009; Colledge 2012)

WHAT IS A CITATION?Citations reflect som sort of cognitive influence (Moed 2005)….the strength of the influence is not known (Martyn 1964)….income or reward (Ravetz 1971)….meaning of citation is governed by paradigmatic & social norms (MacRoberts & MacRoberts 1996; Cronin 2000)….acknowledgement of intellecual debt to other works (Merton 1971)…. Markers or symbols of influence in the aggregate (Small 1978;1987)….citation impact (Martin & Irvine 1983)….rhetorical devices (Luukkonen 1997; Latour 1987)….authority (Gilbert) quality sensor mechanisms (Lindsey 1978)….A manipulable measure of something or other (Singleton 1976)….influence on average (Nicolaisen 2004)…citations are arbitrary (Leimu & Korcheva 2005)… markers (footprints) of scientific communication (Garfield 1979)….income (Albarrán 2011)……

The concept of citation is open for interpretation, of which there are numerous, and it is impossible to exclusively link citations to quality

WHAT IS A RESEARCHER?

Dias 1001/05/2023

WARM UP EXERCISEhttps://todaysmeet.com/Warm_Up

Handout: Researcher evaluation1. Suggest indicators that could measure

attributes, skills, interests and achievements.

2. Consider how to indicate the quality of these attributes, skills, interests & achievements.

EVALUATION

OUTPUT

DATA

MODEL

MOTIVATION TO PUBLISH

MOTIVATION TO CITE

INTERPRETATION OF ALI

LEGITIMATE LINK TO REAL WORLD

PERFORMANCE OF RESEARCHER IN SYSTEM REDEFINES WHAT SUCCESS IS

EXOGENOUS VARIABLES

WHAT IS MISSING

INDEXING POLICY

THE PROBLEM

COFFEE BREAK: Meet back here in 10 minutes

UNIVERSITY LEVEL

RESEARCH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS

-Register the amount & type of a scholar’s publications. REF (UK): Panel-based evaluation every 6th year. Quality=peer review.

BFO (Flanders): Citation-basedQuality=reception & use

ERA (Aus)=Publication-based (udifferentiated). The number of publications dictates the amount of funds given to the university & the assessment of a researcher’s productivity.Quality= not assessed

16

Norwegian indicator 2004 (differentiated)Tiered system of publication types and sources.

Aim: increase publications in international journals and establish a registration system in which institutes can validate & verify publications as well as see other institutions publications

Quality=not addressed

BACKGROUND FOR BFI

BFI (DK) 2009-2012 (differentiated)Tiered system of publication types and sources

Aim: Distribute funding based on the quality of research results(UFM 2015a). Universities are judged based on published research.

Quality= explicit assumption: the journal's status is assumed to say something about the individual publication’s quality (UFM 2015a).

BFI NorgeQuality indicator Publications indicator25% of a sub-pool of basic funds, amount changes each year

2% of all university funds each year

Domain neutral Normalised. Benchmarked against total publication points and domain share

Unclear, complicated Clear, simplePublication performance Stimulate publication in international

resourcesAccountability model, aimed at distributing funds, production measured in Danish Crowns and legitimacy

Registration model

Fractionalised count ”Whole” countingInternational/eksternal collaboration rewarded with more points

Points normalised to the domain w.r.t. speed of publication, collaboration traditions and publication type

Book publishers on level 1 & 2 Book publishers on Level 1

18

TEACHING40%

FACULTY WORK23%

ADMIN.18%

RESEARCH & PUBLICATION

12%

NETWORK7%

WHAT IS THE BFI MEASURING?

HOW RE-SEARCHER

S SPEND THEIR TIME:

WEEKLY AVERAGE

Ziker (2014) https://thebluereview.org/faculty-time-allocation/

BFI

19

GROUP AREA FIELD COVERAGE

1-19 HUM

Language, Culture, History, Linguistics & Semiotics, Literature, Dance, Music, Theater, Art History And Art, Cultural Studies, Media & Communication, Film, Rhetoric, Theology, Philosophy, Archeology, Pedagogy, Education, Anthropology, IT & Humanities

20-27 SOC. SCI

Law, Sociology, Social Work, Political Science, Geography, Social Economics, Psychology, Library & Information Science

28-46 SCI/TEK

Geo-physics, Physics, Astronomy, Math, Chemistry, Biology, Environmental Science, Agriculture, Molecular Science, Pharmacology, Civil Engineering, Transport, Electronics, Energy, Chemical Engineering, Nanoscience, Medical Technology, System Development And Entrepreneurship, Food Science

47-62 SUND

Medicine, Surgery, Anesthesiology, Neurology, Ear-nose-throat, Eye Disease, Gynecology, Dermatology, Pediatrics, Pharmacology, Dentistry, Nursing, Public Health, Veterinary, Pathology, General Medicine

63-68 OTHERGender Studies, Architecture, Town Planning, Sport, Digital Communication, Information Systems & IT Management, Science Studies And Research Analysis

20

BFI STRUCTURE: PUBLICATION TYPESPublication types N. 1 N.2Monography in ISBN title (inc. reports, ex. Text books) 5 8Monography in book series 5 8Contribution to anthology, ISBN title (inc. introductory & final chapters; book chapters; ex., abstracts, lecture manuscripts, PPTs, encyclopedia, preface/afterword, commentaries, editorial work)

0.5 2

Contribution to anthology, bookseries 1 3Contribution to a conference, series 1 3Contribution to a conference 0.5 2Article (inc. letter, review ex., abstracts, editorial letter, commentary, book review) 1 3

Doctorate 5Patent 1

Publication types registered in PURE, PURE4 42 basic publishing types:http://bibliotek.science.ku.dk/forskdok/docs/metadatamodel_P4_LIFE_GR_270312.pdf

21

CALCULATION OF BFI POINTSPoints are shared between universities dependent on how many authors belonging to the university are listed on the publication:

A book on level 2 gives 8 points. There are 3 authors from AU, 2 from CPU & 1 from a foreign university.

AU = 3/6 pointsCPU=2/6 points8/6 = 1.3 points to each authorCollaboration with authors from other universities, Danish or foreign, is rewarded, The total number of points are multiplied by 1.25.AU total points= 1.3 * 3 =3.9 * 1.25 = 4.87 pointsCPU total points = 1.3 * 2 =2.6 * 1.25 = 3.25 points

BFI is domain neutral (funds are shared within domain and not across domains)

22

DISTRIBUTION KEY (fordelingsnøglen)

200945% STÅ INCOME 20%

EKSTERNAL10% PhD

25% BFI

2015

200850% STÅ INCOME 40% EKSTERNAL 10%

PhD

2000

Tax catalogue: http://ufm.dk/uddannelse-og-institutioner/videregaende-uddannelse/universiteter/okonomi/uddannelsesbevillinger

23

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER 2015?BFI must only distribute new funds and not alter the existing taxometer for distribution of basic university funds (DU 2009)

• New funds = globalization pool• The globalization pool is expected to be emptied in 2015• Suggested 25% BFI distributions parametre is supplemented by

taking funds from external grants• Basis funding is grouped together with other funding and

therefore effects distribution and share. fx:HUM greatest operational costs, greatest number of students, lowest STÅ tax and lowest amount of funds invested in researcher education, researcher support, administration and traditionally the lowest number of publications.http://www.altinget.dk/forskning/artikel/basismidler-fylder-mindre-paa-universiteterne

24

COLLABORATION PARAMETER

Publications

Level

Total Points%

Nationalpoints

Collaborative publications

% Collaborative publications

1 2

NAT/TEK 2921 1596 1325 2973.99 24 2406 82

SUND 3437 2379 1058 2851.26 42 3056 88

HUM 963 625 338 1502.72 34 185 19

SAM 739 448 291 1141.47 21 225 30

I ALT 8060 5048 3012 8469.44 30% 5872 72%

*Universities share of the total number of national points, given in percent

https://bfi.fi.dk/Publication/NationalAnalysis

25

PUBLICATION POINTS (UFM 2015)

% diff. i p.p 2013-2014 % diff. antal p. 2013-2014Aalborg U +35.3 +37Aarhus U +4.1 +2.6CBS +20.2 +11.6DTU -0.3 +3.7ITU +19.5 +12.5KU +0.3 -3.7RUC +7.7 -4.9SDU +16.1 -16.4

DOMAIN % diff. 2013-2014

NAT/TEK -0.5

SUND +16.9

HUM +15.3

SAMF +12.5

26

EVALUATION OF BFI

Good focus on strategic publishing. BFI works as an incitement to publish in certain resources.

Yet, the development of longterm, dialogue based communication forms with public society could be ignored in a quest to fulfill the requirement of selling science through an unidirectional intemediatory (red.: journals).

(Schneider, 2015)

27

VISIBILITY OF HUM IN CITATION INDICES

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

HUM i WOSHUM i Scopus

Publication year

Num

ber o

f pub

licati

ons

BFI

P=963 BFI

P=813 BFI

28

EVALUATION OF BFI

UFM(2015) 1. BFI lacks transparancy2. Need for better communication between stakeholders3. Citation indicators could be advantages in some

domains. This will enable analysis of international competition.

The performance of BFI in the model to distribute funds was not assessed

29

CONSIDERATIONSBFI results in an increase of research publications in level 1 and 2 sources, and increased collaboration (Ingwersen & Larsen, 2014)

BFI results in an increased attention on the researcheremploymentpromotion funding applications

Under contract to publish in BFI resources and produce publication points(AAU Bestyrelse, 2014; FOU., 2013; Strandskov, 2011)

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE…

Does BFI prioritize what is measurable over what should be measured but is difficult to quanitify? (Aagaard 2012)

• Leiden manifesto: http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/

• Snowball Metrics: http://www.snowballmetrics.com/

• Responsible Metricshttps://responsiblemetrics.org/

COFFEE BREAK: Meet back here in 10 minutes

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL SCIENTOMETRICS

TYPES OF INDICATORS

Hybridmetrics

PUBLICATION METRICS count production, collaboration, &

contribution

CITATION METRICS count citations, self-citations, adjust for

collaboration

Table of indicators: http://tinyurl.com/nj4mvca

Ranking, growth, proxy for excellence, effect, field comparisons & quality

INTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALI

Wildgaard et al (2014) A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level indicators. Scientometrics, 101(1):125-158

Age: years since first publication (WoS) = 2016-2009 = 7Papers: all publications (WoS)=13Citations: total citations (WoS)= 190

1st subject area=Anesthesiology2nd subject area=Neuroscience3rd subject area=Surgery

INDEX OF QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITYhttp://tinyurl.com/zlxzyz9

Antonakis, J. and Lalive, R. (2008), Quantifying Scholarly Impact: IQp Versus the Hirsch h. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 59: 956–969. doi: 10.1002/asi.20802http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/IQp%20calculator%20version%202008.xls

INDEX OF QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY

190

Cited 1.44 times more than average paper in the specialty

Number of papers performing above average for the specialty

JIF of 3 subject categories

ANOTHER ASPECT OF QUALITY?WEB/ALTMETRICS

WEB 2.0 = PARTICIPATIVE WEB

”… supports, extends, or derives added value from human social behaviour …”

TWO ELEMENTS IN NETWORKS

NodeNodes represent things that relate somehow to one another

TieTie represents relations between nodes

© James Cook https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCerAw4EfTOnYYxLLPZAzMxQ

TWO KINDS OF NETWORKS

DIRECTED NETWORKSNetworks in which the tie has a driection (digraphs), eg. Linking to a webpage, downloading a document, citation networks

UNDIRECTED NETWORKSNetworks in which the tie has no direction eg. friends on Facebook,

© James Cook

INDUCED HOMOPHILYTendency for ties to form

similar others because similar others present the

social environments (group, community,

society)

No wonder blues are mostly tied to blues…there are hardly any reds out there!

© James Cook

CHOICE HOMOPHILY

A tendency to choose to form ties with similar others even when different others are available in the social environment (group, community, society)

© James Cook

PRINCIPLES OF NETWORKS• Ties should be straight• Ties should not be far from each

other• Ties should not cross or touch• Ties should be easy to follow from

node to node• Nodes that connect should be close• Similar nodes should be close to

one another• Central nodes should be in the

center

© James Cook

http:

//no

dusla

bs.c

om/r

esea

rch/

know

ledg

e-gr

aphs

-typ

e-do

cum

ent/

LINKED IN: CONNECTIVITY

Quick-Diverse-Broad

A record of attention: how many people have been exposed to and engaged with a scholarly output in the news, blogs, and on Twitter; article pageviews and downloads; GitHub repository watchers.

A measure of dissemination: where and why a piece of research is being discussed and shared, both among other scholars and in the public sphere.

An indicator of influence and impact: Some altmetrics can signal that research is changing a field of study, the public’s health, or having any other number of tangible effects upon larger society, eg. references in public policy documents; or commentary from experts and practitioners.

An output• Journal Article• Dataset• Poster

An identifier attached to the output• DOI• PubMedID

Mention in a source• Social media• Blogs• Wikipedia• Media

API stands for Application Programming Interface

ALTMETRIC.COM

The colours of the donut each represent a different source of information.

The attention score is a weighted count of all of the attention a research output has received.

http://tinyurl.com/z7zozr5

Demographic breakdown Count %Members of the public 153 18Scientists 31 16Science communicators (bloggers, journalists, editors)

5 3

Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals)

3 2

Indicators are designed to measure particular aspects of the effect of a researcher’s work – over time, to field, as quality, ranking all or selected works, co-authorship etc.

Judgements based on indicators can lead to assumptions about the productivity and impact of a researcher, which can be unsubstantiated, and affect the psychological character of the individual.

ALI have to be methodologically sound

WHAT WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF

51

ALI GIVE A SNAP-SHOT OF SELF IMAGE AND CORE PERSONALITY TRAITS

COMPARING RESEARCHERS CAN EXPOSE THE INDIVIDUAL

INDIVIDUALS USE ANY DATA TO INCREASE ALI SCORES, TO INCREASE THEIR SUBJECT VALIDITY & SELF-WORTH

ALI BRING OBJECTIVITY TO THE EVALUATION & REDUCE GENDER; CULTURAL AND RACIAL BIAS

DOCUMENTING BEING OUT-PERFORMED IS DETRIMENTAL TO A RESEARCHER’S SELF-DEFINITION

ALI DO NOT ADD CONTEXT BUT CAN ADD REDUNDANT INFORMATION

SUCCESS IS DEFINED AS WELL IN THE SYSTEM

EXTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALI

1. TransparencyKnow which data is used to compute the

indicatorUnderstand the math and the inferences

2. DemographicsBe aware if demographics affect the indicator

3. MotiveIndicators must fit the objectives of the

evaluation4. Diversity

Choose indicators that fit the discipline/publication

5. OpenessMake the limitations of indicator explicit, use supplementary indicators

APPROPRIATE INDICATORS

“CAN WE ASSESS THE BEAUTY OF

THE MONA LISA BY COUNTING THE

NUMBER OF VISITORS TO THE

LOUVRE?”

GROUP DISCUSSION. WRITE YOUR IDEAS AT https://todaysmeet.com/Indicators_of_Quality

statistics 5,074,920

www.wikimindmap.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm

STATISTICS up to 2009/2010

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports

59

REFERENCESAagaard, K & Mejlgaard, N (2012) Dansk forskningspolitik efter årstusinskiftet. Aarhus Universitetsforlag

AAU (2013). Newsletter from the Rectorate, October 2013. Retrieved 23-6-2015 from: http://www.intern.aau.dk/ansatte/ledelsen-AAU/aau-rektoratet/rektoratets-nyhedsbrev/vis-nyhedsbrev//nyt-fra-rektoratet-oktober-2013---newsletter-from-the-rectorate-october-2013.cid97315#bfi

Barbulescu, Roxana. 2011. European Research Council’s Grant for Advanced Investigators in Social and Political Sciences. European University Institute.

DS 2014: Svagtfald I statens forskningsbudget(Nyt fra Danmarks statistik, 28 jan 2014) http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2014/NR039_1.pdf

DU. (2009). Politikpapir om model for fordeling af basismidler. Faggruppe 68. Retrieved 23-6-2015, from: http://faggruppe68.pbworks.com/f/Politikpapir_170409__til_hjemmesiden_.pdf

60

REFERENCES

DU. (2012). Overblik over finanslovforslaget for 2013. Retrieved 23-6-2015, from: http://www.dkuni.dk/Politik/~/media/Files/Politiknotater/notat%20om%20ffl13%20(3).ashx

Emmeche, C. (2014). Den Bibliometriske Forskningsindikator - fordele og ulemper. Faggruppe68. Retrieved 23-6-2015, from: http://faggruppe68.pbworks.com/w/page/6015700/Den%20Bibliometriske%20Forskningsindikator%20-%20fordele%20og%20ulemper

FOU. (2013). Publiceringsstrategi for Rosklide Universitet 2015-2018. RUC Hearing. Retrieved 23-6-2015, from: www.ruc.dk/?eID=minute&m=1948&t=179&docID=30986

Hansen, L. (2009) ‖Hvorfor er en humanistisk artikel mere værd end en sundhedsvidenskabelig?‖ Indlæg på bloggen ‘Forskningsfrihed‘ 12/10-2009.

Ingwersen & Larsen (2014) Influence of a performance indicator on Danish research production and citation impact 2000–12. Scientometrics, Online 19/4 2014; DOI 10.1007/s11192-014-1291-x.

61

REFERENCESMeo, Sultan A., Abeer A. Al Masri, Adnan M. Usmani, Almas N. Memon, and Syed Z. Zaidi. 2013. Impact of GDP, spending on R&D, number of universities and scientific journals on research publications among Asian countries. PloS One, 8(6), e66449. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066449

Podlubny, I (2005) A note on comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of sciencehttp://arxiv.org/ftp/math/papers/0410/0410574.pdf

Schneider, J (2015) Publications or Citations – Does it matter? Beneficiaries in two different versions of a national bibliometric performance model, an existing publication-based and a suggested citation-based model. ISSI, Bogaziçi University Printhouse, (2015), from: http://www.issi2015.org/files/downloads/all-papers/0477.pdf

Sivertsen, G. (2009). A Bibliometric Funding Model based on a National Research Information System . Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education. Retrieved 23-6-0015, from: http://www.issi2009.org/agendas/issiprogram/public/documents/ISSI%202009%20Sivertsen%20Vista-094456.pdf

Strandskov, J. (2011). Referat af Institutledermøde den 6. december 2011, Syddansk Universitet. Retrieved 21-04-2015, from: board.sam.sdu.dk/Download.mvc/2889

UFM (2015a). Basismidler efter kvalitet. Retrieved 22-6-2015, from: http://ufm.dk/uddannelse-og-institutioner/videregaende-uddannelse/universiteter/okonomi/basismidler-efter-kvalitet

62

LINKSThe Ref indicator explained: http://www.ref.ac.uk/

Sherpa/Romeo. Publisher Copyright policies & self-archiving http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php

Higher Education Funding council for England:http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2015/Name,103785,en.html

The BOF indicator explained (Dutch): http://data-onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=14492

The Norwegian Indicator: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/helse-og-omsorg/sykehus/nasjonalt-system-for-maling-av-forskning/id446980/#Ind

BFI: http://ufm.dk/forskning-og-innovation/statistik-og-analyser/den-bibliometriske-forskningsindikator