Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The literature on publication counting demonstrates the use of various terminologies and methods. In many scientific publications, no information at all is given about the counting methods used. There is a lack of knowledge and agreement about the sort of information provided by the various methods, about the theoretical and technical limitations for the different methods and about the size of the differences obtained by using various methods. The need for precise definitions and terminology has been expressed repeatedly but with no success.

Counting methods for publications are defined and analysed with the use of set and measure theory. The analysis depends on definitions of basic units for analysis (three chosen for examination), objects of study (three chosen for examination) and score functions (five chosen for examination). The score functions define five classes of counting methods. However, in a number of cases different combinations of basic units of analysis, objects of study and score functions give identical results. Therefore, the result is the characterization of 19 counting methods, five complete counting methods, five complete-normalized counting methods, two whole counting methods, two whole-normalized counting methods, and five straight counting methods.

When scores for objects of study are added, the value obtained can be identical with or higher than the score for the union of the objects of study. Therefore, some classes of counting methods, including the classes of complete, complete-normalized and straight counting methods, are additive, others, including the classes of whole and whole-normalized counting methods, are non-additive.

An analysis of the differences between scores obtained by different score functions and therefore the differences obtained by different counting methods is presented. In this analysis we introduce a new kind of objects of study, the class of cumulative-turnout networks for objects of study, containing full information on cooperation. Cumulative-turnout networks are all authors, institutions or countries contributing to the publications of an author, an institute or a country. The analysis leads to an interpretation of the results of score functions and to the definition of new indicators for scientific cooperation.

We also define a number of other networks, internal cumulative-turnout networks, external cumulative-turnout networks, underlying networks, internal underlying networks and external underlying networks. The networks open new opportunities for quantitative studies of scientific cooperation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J., Collins, P. M. D., Irvine, J., Isard, P. A., Martin, B. R., Narin, F., Stevens, K. (1988), On-line approaches to measuring national scientific output: a cautionary tale, Science and Public Policy, 15: 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, C. L., Furner, J. (2002), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36: 3–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (1989), Assessing assessments of British science. Some facts and figures to accept or decline, Scientometrics, 15: 165–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke, P., Butler, L. (1996), Standards issues in a national bibliometric database: the Australian Case, Scientometrics, 35: 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2003), Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications — the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts, Research Policy, 32: 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEST (2002), La Suisse et la Champions League internationale des institutions de recherche 1994–1999. Contribution au benchmarking international des institutions de recherche. CEST 2002/6. Centre d’études de la science et de la technologie, Berne.

  • CEST (2003), Place scientifique suisse 2001. Développements de la recherche en comparaison internationale sur la base d’indicateurs bibliométriques 1981–2001. CEST 2003/2. Centre d’études de la science et de la technologie, Berne.

  • CEST (2004a), Annexe: aspects méthodologiques. http://www.cest.ch/Publikationen/2004/method_2003.pdf

  • CEST (2004b), CEST Scientometrics Scoreboard. Indicateurs-clés de la place scientifique suisse (1981–2002). http://www.cest.ch/Publikationen/2004/scoreboard_juillet_2004.pdf

  • CEST (2004c), CEST Scientometrics Research Portfolios. Universities and colleges participating in the Champions League: Diagrams and Profiles (1998–2002). http://www.cest.ch/Publikationen/2004/Portfolios_2004/all_countries

  • Codd, E. F. (1970), A relational model of data for large shared data banks, Communications of the ACM, 13: 377–387.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., Cole, S. (1973), Social Stratification in Science, University of Chicago Press.

  • Egghe, L. (1999), An explanation of the relation between the fraction of multinational publications and the fractional score of a country, Scientometrics, 45: 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., Van Hooydonk, G. (2000), Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: consequences for evaluation studies, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51: 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P. O. (2005), Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies, Scientometrics, 64: 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2000), Science in Scandinavia: a bibliometric approach, Scientometrics, 48: 121–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001), National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations, Scientometrics, 51: 69–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Katz, S., Moed, U., Schoepflin, U. (1996), Preface, Scientometrics, 35: 165–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schoepflin, U. (1994), Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ... and beyond? Scientometrics, 30: 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2001), Double effort-double impact? A critical view at international coauthorship in chemistry, Scientometrics, 50: 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halmos, P. R. (1950), Measure Theory, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, L. (2001), Citation counts on multi-authored papers — first-name authors and further authors, Scientometrics 52: 457–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, D. (1980), Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: the problem of multiple authorship, Social Studies of Science, 10: 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mc GRATH, W. E. (1996), The unit of analysis (objects of study) in bibliometrics and scientometrics, Scientometrics, 35: 257–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Springer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., Nederhof, A. J., Tijssen, R. J. W. (1991), International scientific cooperation and awareness within the European Community: problems and perspectives, Scientometrics, 21: 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., Schmock, U. (Eds), (2004), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (The Netherlands).

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Stevens, E. S., Whitlow, E. S. (1991), Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers, Scientometrics, 21: 313–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Whitlow, E. S. (1990). Measurement of Scientific Cooperation and Coauthorship in CEC-related Areas of Science. Report EUR 12900, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Volume 1 and 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J., Moed, H. F. (1993), Modelling multinational publication: development of an on-line fractionation approach to measure national scientific output, Scientometrics, 27: 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Danell, R. (2004), Decomposing national trends in acitivity and impact. A study of Swedish neuroscience papers. In: H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T System, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht (The Netherlands), pp. 514–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., Danell, R. (2004), Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies, Scientometrics, 60: 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., Braun, T. (1989), Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields. 1981–1985, Scientometrics, 16: 3–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. W., van Leeuwen, T. N. (2003), Bibliometric Analyses of World Science. Extended technical annex to chapter 5 of the Third European Report on S&T Indicators. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/indicators/docs/3rd_report_biblio_ext_methodology.pdf. Last accessed July 18th, 2006.

  • Trueba, F. J., Guerrero, H. (2004), A robust formula to credit authors for their publication, Scientometrics, 60: 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (1997), Science as an international enterprise, Science and Public Policy, 24: 290–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Leydesdorff, L. (2005), Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science, Research Policy, 34: 1608–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Teixeira, N. (1996), Science macro-indicators: some aspects of OST experience, Scientometrics, 35: 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical Knowledge Center of Denmark D’ARC — DTU Analysis & Research Promotion Center, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800, Lyngby, Denmark

    Marianne Gauffriau

  2. Hellerup, Denmark

    Peder Olesen Larsen

  3. Center for Science and Technology Studies (CEST), Bern, Switzerland

    Isabelle Maye, Anne Roulin-Perriard & Markus von Ins

Authors
  1. Marianne Gauffriau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peder Olesen Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isabelle Maye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne Roulin-Perriard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Markus von Ins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne Gauffriau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P.O., Maye, I. et al. Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research. Scientometrics 73, 175–214 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1800-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1800-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation