Dataset Information

Institutional operating figures in basic and applied sciences: scientometric analysis of quantitative output benchmarking.

ABSTRACT: Institutional operating figures and benchmarking systems are important features for the implementation of efficacy in basic and applied sciences. They are needed for research evaluation and funding policy. However, the current policy settings for research evaluation urgently need review since there may be imbalances present in many areas.The present study assessed benchmarking of research output. By the use of large data bases research output was categorized and analyzed. Specific areas of major research activity were identified by comparing publication density on different organ systems and inter- and intrafield comparison was performed for selected countries.Novel density-equalizing mappings were constructed that illustrate trends of publication activity and identify subsets of major interest in a total of 5,527,558 published items. A dichotomy was present between Western countries such as the US, UK or Germany and Asian countries such as Japan, China or South Korea concerning research focuses.The present study is the first large scale analysis of global research activity and output over the last 50 years. The presently described assessment of operating figures at the national and international level can be used to identify single areas of research that are heavily focused. Further research on qualitative output benchmarking is needed to improve current policy settings for research evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Groneberg-Kloft B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2459159 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Institutional operating figures in basic and applied sciences: scientometric analysis of quantitative output benchmarking.

Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix B Scutaru Cristian C Kreiter Carolin C Kölzow Silvana S Fischer Axel A Quarcoo David D

Health research policy and systems 20080613

<h4>Background</h4>Institutional operating figures and benchmarking systems are important features for the implementation of efficacy in basic and applied sciences. They are needed for research evaluation and funding policy. However, the current policy settings for research evaluation urgently need review since there may be imbalances present in many areas.<h4>Methods</h4>The present study assessed benchmarking of research output. By the use of large data bases research output was categorized an ...[more]

PMID: 18554379

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPhD is the highest awarded degree offered by universities in different disciplines. Owners of a PhD can teach at universities, start independent research and receive a higher salary while further building a scientific career. We examined whether the publication output before the PhD degree has a correlation with subsequent research activities.MethodsWe downloaded publication and citation data from the Hungarian Scientific Bibliography for Hungarian researchers who obtained PhD between the ages of 24 and 45. The researchers were grouped into eleven scientific sections. We examined the number of Q1 publications published in the previous 5 years, the H-index, the total number of citations for the last complete year, and the biological age of the researcher. Each parameter was computed for the year at which the PhD was obtained and ten years later. Pre-PhD publications (and citations for these) were excluded when assessing post-PhD track records. Spearman rank correlation and Kruskal-Wallis test were computed.ResultsWe analyzed all together 4,790 researchers. We obtained a positive correlation between the number of Q1 publications before and after PhD (corr. coeff. = 0.21-0.54, p<0.01 in all sections), between the H-index before and after PhD (corr. coeff. = 0.32-0.56, p<0.01 in all sections), and between the citations received before and after PhD (corr. coeff. = 0.34-0.51, p<0.01 in all sections). All three metrics measured ten years after the PhD were negatively correlated with the age of the researcher at the time of obtaining the PhD (number of publications corr. coeff. = -0.09-0.22, p<0.05; H-index corr. coeff. = -0.09-0.29, p<0.08; number of citations corr. coeff. = -0.14-0.30, p<0.01). Among all disciplines, Philosophy and History and Engineering sciences show the strongest correlation between pre- and post-PhD output. When running multiple regression analysis for all three metrics as dependent variables and the number of articles, the H-index, the number of citations in the year of the PhD, the calendar year of PhD, and the gender of the researcher as independent variables, the number of articles and the H-index in the year of PhD reached the strongest positive correlations while gender had a negative correlation.ConclusionsWe independently evaluated pre- and post-PhD publication performance. In connection with age, the discipline-specific reference values of scientometric parameters at the time of obtaining the PhD can help to select candidates for postdoctoral grants and positions.

Project description:BackgroundHistorical, social and economic reasons can lead to major differences in the allocation of health system resources and research funding. These differences might endanger the progress in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches of socio-economic important diseases. The present study aimed to assess different benchmarking approaches that might be used to analyse these disproportions. Research in two categories was analysed for various output parameters and compared to input parameters. Germany was used as a high income model country. For the areas of cardiovascular and respiratory medicine density equalizing mapping procedures visualized major geographical differences in both input and output markers.ResultsAn imbalance in the state financial input was present with 36 cardiovascular versus 8 respiratory medicine state-financed full clinical university departments at the C4/W3 salary level. The imbalance in financial input is paralleled by an imbalance in overall quantitative output figures: The 36 cardiology chairs published 2708 articles in comparison to 453 articles published by the 8 respiratory medicine chairs in the period between 2002 and 2006. This is a ratio of 75.2 articles per cardiology chair and 56.63 articles per respiratory medicine chair. A similar trend is also present in the qualitative measures. Here, the 2708 cardiology publications were cited 48337 times (7290 times for respiratory medicine) which is an average citation of 17.85 per publication vs. 16.09 for respiratory medicine. The average number of citations per cardiology chair was 1342.69 in contrast to 911.25 citations per respiratory medicine chair. Further comparison of the contribution of the 16 different German states revealed major geographical differences concerning numbers of chairs, published items, total number of citations and average citations.ConclusionDespite similar significances of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases for the global burden of disease, large input and output imbalances have been revealed in the present study which point to a need for changes in funding policies. The present study supplies data that could be used for decision making in the field of health systems funding.

Dataset Information

Institutional operating figures in basic and applied sciences: scientometric analysis of quantitative output benchmarking.

Publications

Institutional operating figures in basic and applied sciences: scientometric analysis of quantitative output benchmarking.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets