Abstract
In this paper, we highlight the fact that we cannot find a perfect index to evaluate output completely fairly and reasonably, and the research evaluation is a multi-attribute problem. This paper studies the method of multi-attribute comprehensive evaluation of scientists. Firstly, this paper chooses appropriate bibliometric indicators to evaluate research output. Following this, TOPSIS method is used to make a comprehensive research evaluation. Numerical examples are made regarding the purpose of testing the feasibility of the evaluation indicators and the evaluation method. Compared with traditional evaluation approaches on research performance, multi-attribute evaluation is more comprehensive and persuasive. It can overcome one-sidedness and reduce the bias of single indicator effectively.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2009) The state of \(h\) index research. EMBO Rep 10:2–6
Costas R, Bordons M (2007) The \(h\) index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetrics 1:193–203
Egghe L (2006) Theory and practise of the \(g\) index. Scientometrics 69:131–152
Egghe L, Rousseau R (2008) An \(h\)-index weighted by citation impact. Inf Process Manage 44:770–780
Egghe L (2009) Characteristic scores and scales based on \(h\)-type indices. J Informetrics 4:14–22
Garfield E (2001) Interview with eugene garfield. Cortex 37:575–577
Guz AN, Rushchitsky JJ (2009) Scopus: a system for the evaluation of scientific journals. Int Appl Mech 45:351–362
Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Nature 444:1003–1004
Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New York
Jin BH (2006) \(h\)-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Sci Focus 1:8–9 (In Chinese)
Jin BH, Liang LM et al (2007) The R-and AR-indices: complementing the \(h\)-index. Chin Sci Bull 52:855–863
Kosmulski M (2006) A new hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original \(h\) index. ISSI Newsl 2:4–6
Leeuwen TV (2008) Testing the validity of the hirsch-index for research assessment purposes. Res Eval 17:157–160
Park JH, Cho HJ et al (2013) Extension of the vikor method to dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Comput Math Appl 65:731–744
Schmoch U, Schubert T et al (2010) How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: a balanced approach. Res Eval 19:2–18
Van Raan AFJ (2006) Comparison of the hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 67:491–502
Yu L, Chen Y et al (2005) Research on the evaluation of academic journals based on structural equation modeling. J Informetrics 3:304–311
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Liu, L. (2014). Research Performance Evaluation of Scientists: A Multi-Attribute Approach. In: Xu, J., Cruz-Machado, V., Lev, B., Nickel, S. (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 281. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55122-2_103
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55122-2_103
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-55121-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-55122-2
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)