Skip to main content
Log in

Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focuses on the dichotomy between the multifaceted and multidimensional nature of contemporary R&D activity and unidimensional approaches to the measurement of its performance. While publications in refereed journals and citations are the most preferred indicators of research performance, there are also other indicators such as chapters in edited books, research reports, patents, algorithms, prototypes and designs, etc., which cannot be overlooked. Even when multiple indicators are used, they are used in isolation with the result that one gets only partial views of a multidimensional manifold. Here, a major problem is how to construct a composite measure of research performance, without assigning arbitrary weights to different measures of research output. This problem is particularly important for cross-institutional and cross-national comparisons of research performance. In this paper we have demonstrated the feasibility of constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance using Partial Order Scoring (POSCOR) algorithm developed by Hunya (1976). The algorithm is briefly described and applied to the empirical data on research outputs of 1460 research units in different socio-cultural, institutional and disciplinary settings. The potentialities and limitations of using POSCOR algorithm in scientometric analysis are briefly discussed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ANON (January, 1993), Research Performance Indicators Survey, National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Commissioned Report No. 21, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia.

  • BACKES-GELLNER, D. SADOWSKI (1990), Organizational implementation of bibliometric indicators, Scientometrics, 18: 385-395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BHARGAVA, M., C. DUBELLAR, S. RAMASWAMI (1994), Reconciling diverse measures of performance: A conceptual framework and test of a methodology, Journal of Business Research, 31: 233-246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIRNBAUM, P. H. (1979), Some relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 318-328.

    Google Scholar 

  • BRAUN, T., W. GLäNZEL, A. SCHUBERT (1993), Scientometric indicators datafiles, 1980-1989, Scientometrics, 28: 137-150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BRAUN, T., W. GLäNZEL, H. MACZELKA, A. SCHUBERT (1994), World science in the eighties: National performances in publication output and citation impact, 1985-1989 versus 1980-1984, Part I: All science fields combined, physics and chemistry, Scientometrics, 29: 299-334, Part II: Life sciences, engineering, and mathematics, Scientometrics, 31: 3-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COLE, G. (1979), Classifying research units by performance and influence: Typology of Round 1 data, In: F.M. ANDREWS (Ed.) Scientific Productivity, UNESCO; Cambridge University Press.

  • COOPER, W. W., A. COOPER, L. M. SEIFORD (2000 a), Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • COOPER, W. W., L. M. SEIFORD, K. TONE (2000 b), Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers (page XIX).

    Google Scholar 

  • DE HEMPTINNE, Y., F. M. ANDREWS (1979), The international study on the organization and performance of research units: An overview, In: F. M. ANDREWS (Ed.), Scientific Productivity, UNESCO: Cambridge University Press.

  • FOX, M. F. (1983), Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review, Social Studies of Science, 13: 285-305.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRUPPE, H., S. MAITAL, A. FRENKEL, K. KOSCHTZKY (1992), A data envelopment analysis to compare technological excellence and export sales of Israel and European Community countries, Research Evaluation, 87-101.

  • HAGSTROM, W.O. (1965), The Scientific Community, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • HUNYA, P. (1976), A Ranking Procedure Based on Partially Ordered Sets, Internal Report, József Attila University, Laboratory of Cybernetics, Szeged (Hungary).

    Google Scholar 

  • IRVINE, J. (1989), Evaluation of scientific institutions: Lessons from a bibliometric study of a UK Technical university, In: D. EVERED, S. HARNET (Eds), The Evaluation of Scientific Research, John Wiley & Sons.

  • JOHNES, G., J. JOHNES (1992), Apples and oranges: The aggregation problem in publication analysis, Scientometrics, 25: 353-365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JOHNES, G., J. JOHNES (1993), Measuring the research performance of UK Economics departments: An application of data envelopment analysis, Oxford Economics Papers, 45: 323-347.

    Google Scholar 

  • KEENEY, R., H. RAIFFA (1993), Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • KOSTOFF, R. N. (1992), Research impact assessment, Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Management of Technology, Miami, FL (USA), 19-21 February.

  • KOSTOFF, R. N. (1996), The Handbook of Research Impact Assessment, DTIC Report No. ADA 296021, Arlington, VA (USA): Office of Naval Research, (page.37).

    Google Scholar 

  • MARCSON, S. (1966), Scientists in Organizations: Business and Government, Brunswick, NJ (USA): Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MARK, M., G. T. HENRY, G. JULNES (2000), Evaluation: an Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding and Improving Policies and Programs, San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAZLISH, B. (1982), The quality of science-An evaluation, In: M. C. LaFallote (Ed.), Quality of Science, Cambridge: MIT Press, 48-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAGPAUL, P. S. (1987), Organization and Efficiency of Research Groups, New Delhi (India): National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAGPAUL, P. S. (2001), Guide to Advanced Data Analysis Using IDAMS Software, http://www.unesco.org/idams

  • ROGERS, M., L. BRUEN, Y. MAYSTRE (1999), ELECTRE and Decision SupportMethods and Applications in Engineering and Infrastructure Investment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROUSSEAU, S., R. ROUSSEAU (1997), Data envelopment analysis as a tool for constructing scientometric indicators, Scientometrics, 40: 45-56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ROUSSEAU, S., R. ROUSSEAU (1998), The scientific wealth of European nations: Taking effectiveness into account, Scientmetrics, 42: 75-87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ROY, B. (1991), The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods, Theory and Decision, 31: 49-73.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • ROY, B. (1990), Decision-aid and decision-making, European Journal of Operational Research, 45: 324-331.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • ROY, B., D. VANDERPOOTEN (1996), The European School of MCDA: A historical review, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5: 22-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TRIANTAPHYLLOU, E. (2000), Multicriteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, Kluwer Academic Press.

  • WEBER, M., K. BORCHRDING (1993), Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 67: 1-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nagpaul, P.S., Roy, S. Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance. Scientometrics 56, 383–402 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022382904996

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022382904996

Keywords

Navigation