Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the quality of scientific performance of the selected countries of Southeast Europe

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientific productivity data (number of publications and h-indices), collected from the Web of Science (WoS) database for the period 2005–2010 for 13 countries of Southeast Europe (including Austria as the reference country) and for the 251 WoS categories were grouped, during extraction of data, into 41 fields of science (FoS) according to Frascati manual classification (OECD in Revised field of science and technology (FoS) classification in the Frascati manual, pp. 1–12, 2007). The Scientific Performance QuaLity (SPQL) level has been defined and calculated for the 13 studied countries and for all FoS based on the established best fit of the linear dependence between P 1/α and h-index. From these data the SPQL levels of the six major fields and overall country levels have been generated in a way which makes them dependent not on the quantity of scientific publications output, but on its quality thus making them suitable for constructing conceivable science policies. Nevertheless, general observed trend shows growth of the quality of scientific performance (SPQL) with scientific production output, but there are evident exceptions from such a tendency in both positive and negative directions. The highest quality levels of the reached scientific performance have been identified for the 41 FoSs (subfields) and 6 major FoS by the countries concerned.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Cicero, T. (2012). What is appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93, 1005–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2013). The sustainability of h and g indexes for measuring the research performance of institutions. Scientometrics, 97, 555–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bletsas, A., & Sahalos, J. N. (2009). Hirsch Index Rankings Require Scaling and Higher Moment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2577–2586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2013). A better alternative to the h index. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Anegón, F. M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The new excellence indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 333–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). What do we know about the h Index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Reports, 10, 2–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h Index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h Index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daraio, C., & Moed, H. F. (2011). Is Italian science declining? Research Policy, 40, 1380–1392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, Z.-Q., Ge, J.-P., Wu, X.-M., & Zheng, X.-N. (2013). Bibliometrics evaluation of research performance in pharmacology/pharmacy: China relative to ten representative countries. Scientometrics, 96, 829–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2005). Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. Elsevier: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the h index. Science Focus, 1, 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaps, H. S. (1978). Information retrieval: Computational and theoretical aspects (pp. 206–208). London: Academic Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, Y.-S. (2013). Top cited research works in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Scientometrics, 94, 1297–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharroman, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73, 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iñigo, J., Palma, J.-A., Iriarte, J., & Urrestarazu, E. (2013). Evolution of the publications in clinical neurology: Scientific impact of different countries during 2000–2009 period. Scientometrics, 95, 941–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacsó, P. (2009). The h-index for countries in Web of Science and Scopus. Online Information Review, 33, 831–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalemani, B. S., Sagar, A., Surwase, G., & Bhanumurthy, K. (2013). Publication trends in material science: A global perspective. Scientometrics, 94, 1275–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivinen, O., Hedman, J., & Kaipainen, P. (2013). Productivity analysis of research in natural sciences, technology and clinical medicine: An input–output model applied in comparison of top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian countries. Scientometrics, 94, 683–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutlača, D., Babić, D., Živković, L., & Štrbac, D. (2015). Analysis of quantitative and qualitative indicators of SEE countries scientific output. Scientometrics, 102, 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazaridis, T. (2010). Ranking university departments using the mean h index. Scientometrics, 82, 211–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, E. Y., Liaoa, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42, 1515–1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41, 1219–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., Nightingale, P., & Alfredo Yegros-Yegros, A. (2012). Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41, 1182–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinari, J. F., & Molinari, A. (2008). A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics, 75, 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD—Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (2007). Revised field of science and technology (FoS) classification in the Frascati manual. OECD, pp. 1–12.

  • Perme, M. P., Stare, J., Žaucer, R., & Žaucer, M. (2012). Comparison of the citation distribution and h index between groups of different sizes. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 712–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2010). An iCE map approach to evaluate performance and efficiency of scientific production of countries. Scientometrics, 85, 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2013). Inconsistencies in the highly cited publications indicator. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(6), 1298–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahira, M., Alias, R. A., & Bakri, A. (2013). Scientometric assessment of engineering in Malaysians universities. Scientometrics, 96, 865–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. K. (2007). On the robustness of the h-Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1547–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research presented in this paper was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological development of the Republic of Serbia, under the project: “Research and Development of the Platform for Science Based Management of the Scientific and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia”, 2011–2015, Reg. No. III 47005.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute “Vinča”, University of Belgrade, P. O. Box 522, 11001, Belgrade, Serbia

    Dragan Babić

  2. Institute “Mihajlo Pupin”, University of Belgrade, Volgina 15, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Đuro Kutlača, Lazar Živković, Dijana Štrbac & Dušica Semenčenko

Authors
  1. Dragan Babić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Đuro Kutlača
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lazar Živković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dijana Štrbac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dušica Semenčenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dragan Babić.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Babić, D., Kutlača, Đ., Živković, L. et al. Evaluation of the quality of scientific performance of the selected countries of Southeast Europe. Scientometrics 106, 405–434 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1649-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1649-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation