Performance-Based Evaluation Metrics: Influence at the Macro, Meso, and Micro Level

This chapter aims to critically engage with the performative nature of bibliometric indicators and explores how they influence scholarly practice at the macro, meso, and individual levels. It begins with a comparison between two national performance-based funding systems in Sweden and Norway at the macro level, within universities at the meso level, down to the micro level where individual researchers must relate these incentives to knowledge building within their specialty. I argue that the common-sense “representational model of bibliometric indicators” is questionable in practice, since it cannot capture the qualities of research in any unambiguous way. Furthermore, a performative notion on scientometric indicators needs to be developed that takes into account the variability and uncertainty of the aspects of research that is to be evaluated.

Your Brother’s Gatekeeper: How Effects of Evaluation Machineries in Research Are Sometimes Enhanced

Many warnings are issued against the influence of evaluation machineries (such as bibliometric indicators) upon research practices. It is often argued that human judgment can function as a bulwark against constitutive effects of evaluation machineries. Using vignettes (small case narratives) related to the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BRI), this chapter shows that gatekeepers who “know the future” and use this “knowledge” in a preemptive or precautionary way play a key role in the construction of reality which comes out of the BRI. By showing that human judgment sometimes enhances or multiplies the effects of evaluation machineries, this chapter contributes to an understanding of mechanisms which lead to constitutive effects of evaluation systems in research.

Funding Sources in Russian-authored Papers in Leading International Journals: the Case of Medicine

We present results of a pioneering survey of funding sources in papers with Russian affiliations published in highly cited international journals in 2010-2020 in the area of medicine and health sciences. We identify major funders both from Russia and abroad, from government, for-profit and non-profit sectors, and conflate them with advanced bibliometric indicators and techniques including author-level fractional counting. We also uncover sectoral differences regarding funding sources for universities and non-teaching institutions. Amongst other findings it is shown that Russian state sources, which were lagging behind foreign, are gaining the lead since 2015, but the Russian-funded papers still tend to have less citations, and lessinternational co-authors. Such results are important for science studies and science policy.

Bibliometric Study of Scientific Productivity on the Impacts on Mental Health in Times of Pandemic

Background and Objectives: The presence of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus is causing enormous threats to people’s health and lives, so quantifying the scientific productivity on mental health in times of pandemic is an urgent need, especially to expand the degree of knowledge on mental health problems in regions of low scientific productivity. The aim was to characterize the bibliometric indicators of scientific productivity on mental health during the pandemic in the PubMed Identifier database of the National Library of Medicine in the United States. Materials and Methods: A documentary study (bibliometric) of the scientific productivity on mental health in times of pandemic from January 2020 to June 2021 was carried out. The PubMed database was used to abstract the information from the original scientific articles. The data abstracted were: authors, year of publication, journal name, country, and language of publication. Results: We identified 47 original articles worldwide, which were published in 29 journals and in three languages (English, Spanish, and German). We observed three groups of countries that published on mental health topics. The first group comprised the largest number of publications, which were multicenter studies (six studies), followed by India (five studies), and Italy (four studies). A second group comprised Bangladesh, China, USA, and Spain, with 3 studies each; and a third group comprised 13 countries (Albania, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, and New Zealand) with one study each. Conclusions: Bibliometric indicators of scientific productivity on mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic have ostensibly increased. We verified 47 studies in PubMed, which could serve to improve the understanding and management of COVID-19, as well as serve as a thought-provoking means for other countries and researchers to publish on the state of mental health during and post pandemic.

Global research mapping on reproductive health: a bibliometric visualisation analysis

Purpose This study aims to examine the research productivity and network visualisation on reproductive health (RH) domain with several bibliometric indicators and applied visualisation approach in co-authorship, citation, co-occurrence of keywords and bibliographic coupling analysis in the area of RH. Design/methodology/approach This study used bibliometric indicators to determine the highly productive authors, source title, documents and organisations. This study used Web of Science database and retrieved a total of 18,186 scientific publications on the domain of RH published during the period of 2010–2020. Data analysis was also performed using VOS viewer software and RStudio. Findings The findings discovered the increasing trends of research publications in reproductive health in past ten years. The USA UK, China and Australia were the top four productive countries in terms of publishing research in the arena, and “Kishsin DM” and “Hauser R” have secured in top two positions under highly prolific authors category. University of California, Harvard University and University of London were observed under the top three productive institutions in the domain. This study also revealed association and collaboration among authors, country and institutions in the visualisation analysis. The core findings of co-occurrence of keywords emphasised that “RH,” “assisted reproductive technology,” “women,” “pregnancy” and “in-vitro fertilization” were established frequently used keywords and have robust link strength. Practical implications The findings will be helpful to the researchers to know about the status of latest trends and development of the domain. This study is also helpful to the library authority for collection development in the specific subject domain. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there was no past study found on the evaluation of research productivity and network visualisation in the domain of RH, which is a globally important issue.

Study of the Most Valuable Researcher: Bibliometric Indicators and Collaboration Networks

This work seeks to find the Most Valuable Researcher (MVR) within the academics of Faculties of Engineering and Business of a University in Chile, applying bibliometric indicators and collaboration networks. The methodology consisted in reviewing the literature referring to similar bibliometric studies from open databases, such as SciELO and Google Scholar. As a result of the study, a model was proposed based on the main bibliometric indicators used, with it was possible to filter the researchers from both faculties and establish a ranking with those academics with the best results and the current situation facing the research in each unit. This ranking indicates the standard that the most valuable researchers have, identifying that the variable “collaborative networks” has a direct relationship with the productivity of researchers and, also, the existence of correlations with indicators of network grade, co-authorship, and research area. This work seeks to deliver recommendations on the quantity and quality of scientific production within the University. Future research should include other databases and expand the scope by region, country, and area of expertise, and consider other factors such as the age of the researcher, forms of citation, and characteristics by area of knowledge, as well as deepen the concept of MVR, and its virtuous effect on the productivity of an academic unit.

Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Peer Feedback in Teaching and Learning

A growing body of literature has highlighted the pivotal role of peer feedback in teaching and learning. However, a paucity of studies explore the trend of literature in this research area, particularly using a bibliometric approach. Therefore, this study was conducted to reveal the major trends in the research area and construct an intellectual landscape of the relevant studies in the field. Bibliometric details of a total of 276 research articles, published from 1985 to 2020 (August), were retrieved from the Scopus database for further analysis. In particular, the publication trend, the most productive countries, the most productive authors, the top ten source titles, and keyword used in the research area, were explored using bibliometric indicators. The rapid growth of publications on peer feedback was observed since 2010, with a sharp peak noted in 2019. Furthermore, writing context was found as the central focus of peer feedback research. Among others, three key themes that surfaced out of term-occurrence analysis included: impacts/effects of using peer feedback approach, sub-themes concerning peer feedback implementation, and peer feedback in writing context. Additionally, from the review of 30 top-cited publications, 3 prominent themes: effects of using peer feedback approach, effective or ineffective peer feedback, and potential challenges or issues in peer feedback implementation emerged. Based on the findings, this paper concludes with some recommended avenues for future research.

Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar h-index?

PurposeThe study's main purpose is to scrutinize Google Scholar profiles and find the answer to the question, “Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar Bibliometric Indicators like h-index and i10-index?”Design/methodology/approachThe authors scrutinized the Google Scholar profiles of the top 50 library and science researchers claiming authorship of 21,022 publications. The bibliographic information of all the 21,022 publications like authorship and subject details were verified to identify accuracy, discrepancies and manipulation in their authorship claims. The actual and fabricated entries of all the authors along with their citations were recorded in the Microsoft Office Excel 2007 for further analyses and interpretation using simple arithmetic calculations.FindingsThe results show that the h-index of authors obtained from the Google Scholar should not be approved at its face value as the variations exist in the publication count and citations, which ultimately affect their h-index and i10 index. The results reveal that the majority of the authors have variations in publication count (58%), citations (58%), h-index (42%) and i10-index (54%). The magnitude of variation in the number of publications, citations, h-index and i10-index is very high, especially for the top-ranked authors.Research limitations/implicationsThe scope of the study is strictly restricted to the faculty members of library and information science and cannot be generalized across disciplines. Further, the scope of the study is limited to Google Scholar and caution needs to be taken to extend results to other databases like Web of Science and Scopus.Practical implicationsThe study has practical implications for authors, publishers, and academic institutions. Authors must stop the unethical research practices; publishers must adopt techniques to overcome the problem and academic institutions need to take precautions before hiring, recruiting, promoting and allocating resources to the candidates on the face value of the Google Scholar h-index. Besides, Google needs to work on the weak areas of Google Scholar to improve its efficacy.Originality/valueThe study brings to light the new ways of manipulating bibliometric indicators like h-index, and i10-index provided by Google Scholar using false authorship claims.

SMALL ARCHITECTURAL FORMS: COMPOSITION AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE FOR THEIR PRODUCTION

The work is the result of a multi parameter analysis of scientific publications affecting the study of the properties and characteristics of composite binders and concretes based on them, used in the design and production of small architectural forms. General assessment of the prospects for the use of composite binders in this type of buildings and structures is given. All publications and experimental materials on this topic are summarized according to the following parameters: bibliometric indicators of articles for the period from 2000 to 2020, types of concrete used for small architectural forms, types of binders, aggregates, fillers and additives used, physical and mechanical properties and controlled parameters of concrete. It is shown that in most of the studies under consideration, fine-grained concrete based on white, general construction and non-ferrous cement was used. At the same time, to increase the efficiency of finished products in terms of the formation of a developed shape and ensure their weather resistance, high-quality cements are used, the water-cement ratio decreases, including due to the use of additives for various purposes. It is substantiated that designing of concrete for small architectural forms should be carried out based on the specified requirements for this type of structures. The production of high-workability mixtures should be considered to ensure the specified castability in order to form products of various configurations and standard sizes while maintaining architectural expressiveness and compliance with the modern landscape of urban space.

Journal flipping to Open Access: The Perception of Spanish Journal Managers

There is a growing interest in determining the factors that influence a journal’s flipping to Open Access (OA). Using semi-structured interviews combined with bibliometric indicators, this paper uncovers the perception of Spanish managers related to OA and the decision to flip. The key research questions are twofold: How well do bibliometric measures reflect the changes in the status of the journal? How do journal managers perceive the flipping process? In order to answer these, twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with journal managers of Spanish Journals. The findings suggest the great majority of managers are aware of the indicators, but only two considered they reflect their reality. The results indicate as the main motivations to flip to OA: being imposed by the host institution, economic reasons, and increase visibility and internationalization. An increase in the number of submissions, visibility, or internationalization since the transition is perceived as a benefit while the loss of interchanges with other institutions is seen as the major drawback. Although flipping to OA is perceived by the managers to have many advantages, it raises some challenges too, especially the need for funding, lack of resources capacity for technical support, and the creation of alliances.