Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance

W. Glänzel, Bart Thijs, A. Schubert, Koenraad Debackere

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

65 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A common problem in comparative bibliometric studies at the meso and micro level is the differentiation and specialisation of research profiles of the objects of analysis at lower levels of aggregation. Already the institutional level requires the application of more sophisticated techniques than customary in evaluation of national research performance. In this study institutional profile clusters are used to examine which level of the hierarchical subject-classification should preferably be used to build subject-normalised citation indicators. It is shown that a set of properly normalised indicators can serve as a basis of comparative assessment within and even among different clusters, provided that their profiles still overlap and such comparison is thus meaningful. On the basis of 24 selected European universities, a new version of relational charts is presented for the comparative assessment of citation impact.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)165-188
Number of pages24
JournalScientometrics
Volume78
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2009

Fingerprint

meso level
micro level
aggregation
specialization
performance
Agglomeration
university
evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Library and Information Sciences
  • Law

Cite this

@article{1ed5f8defadd4a0792e8c3f094ac218f,
title = "Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance",
abstract = "A common problem in comparative bibliometric studies at the meso and micro level is the differentiation and specialisation of research profiles of the objects of analysis at lower levels of aggregation. Already the institutional level requires the application of more sophisticated techniques than customary in evaluation of national research performance. In this study institutional profile clusters are used to examine which level of the hierarchical subject-classification should preferably be used to build subject-normalised citation indicators. It is shown that a set of properly normalised indicators can serve as a basis of comparative assessment within and even among different clusters, provided that their profiles still overlap and such comparison is thus meaningful. On the basis of 24 selected European universities, a new version of relational charts is presented for the comparative assessment of citation impact.",
author = "W. Gl{\"a}nzel and Bart Thijs and A. Schubert and Koenraad Debackere",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11192-008-2109-5",
language = "English",
volume = "78",
pages = "165--188",
journal = "Scientometrics",
issn = "0138-9130",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts

T2 - Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance

AU - Glänzel, W.

AU - Thijs, Bart

AU - Schubert, A.

AU - Debackere, Koenraad

PY - 2009/1

Y1 - 2009/1

N2 - A common problem in comparative bibliometric studies at the meso and micro level is the differentiation and specialisation of research profiles of the objects of analysis at lower levels of aggregation. Already the institutional level requires the application of more sophisticated techniques than customary in evaluation of national research performance. In this study institutional profile clusters are used to examine which level of the hierarchical subject-classification should preferably be used to build subject-normalised citation indicators. It is shown that a set of properly normalised indicators can serve as a basis of comparative assessment within and even among different clusters, provided that their profiles still overlap and such comparison is thus meaningful. On the basis of 24 selected European universities, a new version of relational charts is presented for the comparative assessment of citation impact.

AB - A common problem in comparative bibliometric studies at the meso and micro level is the differentiation and specialisation of research profiles of the objects of analysis at lower levels of aggregation. Already the institutional level requires the application of more sophisticated techniques than customary in evaluation of national research performance. In this study institutional profile clusters are used to examine which level of the hierarchical subject-classification should preferably be used to build subject-normalised citation indicators. It is shown that a set of properly normalised indicators can serve as a basis of comparative assessment within and even among different clusters, provided that their profiles still overlap and such comparison is thus meaningful. On the basis of 24 selected European universities, a new version of relational charts is presented for the comparative assessment of citation impact.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57849100599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57849100599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11192-008-2109-5

DO - 10.1007/s11192-008-2109-5

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:57849100599

VL - 78

SP - 165

EP - 188

JO - Scientometrics

JF - Scientometrics

SN - 0138-9130

IS - 1

ER -