Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientometric assessment of engineering in Malaysians universities

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a world trend for Research Performance Evaluation (RPE), developing of new scientometric indices and examining of their application. Consequently, concerns and anomalies arise about the convergent validity and reliability of these indices for the decision making purposes. This is especially prevalent in the region/countries/disciplines having less or emerging trends of publishing and getting citations. The present scientometric study addresses usefulness of the most noted metric h-index along with other selected indicators in the field of Engineering in Malaysians universities. To understand, the role of this metric if any, we examined the functional correlation, predictive value and its relationship with national assessment criteria. Results report that this indicator has good potential to work alone, ease in use and robust to get a broader snapshot for positioning and performance evaluation. However, for better decision making purpose, this can be used for broader contextual peer assessment process along with other indicators. Its validity is further checked with two size independent institutional h-indices: hG–H and hm.

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
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amin, M., & Mabe, M. A. (2003). Impact factors: Use and abuse. Medicina (Buenos Aires), 63(4), 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakri, A. (2010). Evaluation of computer and information science in Malaysia: A bibliometric analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, 226

  • Bedeian, A. G., van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H. (2009). Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 211–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Wallon, G., & Ledin, A. (2008). Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouabid, H., & Martin, B. (2009). Evaluation of Moroccan research using a bibliometric-based approach: Investigation of the validity of the h-index. Scientometrics, 78(2), 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Marchant, T. (2011). Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1761–1769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L., & McAllister, I. (2011). Evaluating university research performance using metrics. European political science, 10, 44–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. F. J. (2005). Evaluation of University Research in Europe: Conceptual Framework and Comparative Typology. HOFO Working Paper Series 05. 002. Vienna, IFF (Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies).

  • Coleman, A. (2007). Assessing the value of a journal beyond the impact factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1148–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csajbo′k, E., Berhidi, A., Vasas, L., & Schubert, A. (2007). Hirsch-index for countries based on essential science indicators data. Scientometrics, 73(1), 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, H. M. (2006). Scopus. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Winter. http://www.istl.org/06-winter/databases4.html. Accessed 16 Dec 2008. Accessed 2 Sep 2007.

  • Donovan, C. (2007). Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs. peer review, quality vs. impact. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 538–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engqvist, L., & Frommen, J. (2008). The h-index and self-citations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 11,270–11274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2011). Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1999). How can impact factors be improved? BMJ, 313, 411–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2006). On the h-index: A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. Scientometrics, 67(2), 315–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Schlemmer, B. (2004). A bibliometric approach to the role of author selfcitations in scientific communication. Scientometrics, 59(1),63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Gao, X. (2008). Exploring the h-index at patent level. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harold, L. C. (1975). Note on the possible misuse of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 14(8), 1600–1602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. H., & Lin, W. Y. C. (2011). Probing the effect of author self-citations on h index: A case study of environmental engineering. Journal of Information Science, 37(5), 453–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial, J., & Rodriguez-Navarro, A. (2007). Usefulness of Hirsch’s h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain. Scientometrics, 71(2), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacso, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using web of science. Online Information Review, 32(5), 673–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature, 444, 1003–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2008). A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics, 76(2), 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luz, M. P., et al. (2008). Institutional H-Index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian psychiatric post-graduation programs. Scientometrics, 77(2), 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malaysian Science and Technology Information Center (MASTIC) (2004). Science and Technology Knowledge Productivity in Malaysia Bibliometric Study 2003. Technical report. http://www.mastic.gov.my/portals/mastic/publications/Bibliometric/Bibliometric.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2011.

  • Malaysian Science and Technology Information Center (MASTIC) (2008). Malaysian S and T Indicators report 2008. http://www.mastic.gov.my/portals/mastic/publications/Indicators/2008/ExecSummary.pdf. Accessed 15August 2012.

  • Marchant, T. (2009). An axiomatic characterization of the ranking based on the h-index and some other bibliometric rankings of authors. Scientometrics, 80(2), 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2007). Measuring the research contribution of management academics using the Hirsch index. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60, 1143–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinari, A., & Molinari, J. F. (2008). Mathematical aspects of a new criterion for ranking scientific institutions based on the h-index. Scientometrics, 75(2), 339–356.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • New Web of knowledge, (n. d.). Thomson Reuters. 2011, Accessed 2 Sept 2011.

  • Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). Peer review and the h-index: Two studies. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opthof, T. & Leydedorff, L. (2011). A comment to the paper by Waltman et al. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1011–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, A. (2008). Engineering management or management of technology? A bibliometric study of IEEE TEM. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 3(1), 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2010). Is there a place for a mock h-index? Scientometrics, 84, 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2011). Correlation between h-index, eigenfactor™ and article influence™ of chemical engineering journals (Letter). Current Science, 100(9), 1276.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Raj, R. G., & Zainab, A. N. (2012). Relative measure index: A metric to measure quality. Scientometrics,. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0675-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2007). A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 179–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SETERA’09 (n.d). http://www.mqa.gov.my/SETARA09/index.cfm. Accessed 12 Sept 2011.

  • Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. J. R. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-HiU Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahira, M. Alias, R. A. & Bakri, A. (2011). Application of h-index for research evaluation. A study presented in the Annual Post graduate Seminar, PARS’11, November, Information system research group, FSKSM, University of Technology, Malaysia.

  • van Costas, R., Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2012). Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics, 82(3), 517–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67, 491–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Waltman, L., & 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 

  • Ye, F. Y. (2009). An investigation on mathematical models of the h-index. Scientometrics, 81(2), 493–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, C. Y. (2009). Bibliometric analysis of journal articles published by Southeast Asian chemical engineering researchers. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 3(14), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, C.-Y. (2011). Do impact factor, h-index and eigenfactor™ of chemical engineering journals correlate well with each other and indicate the journals’ influence and prestige? Current Science, 100(5), 648–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachos, G. (1991). Research output evaluation of 2 university departments in Greece with the use of bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 21, 195–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

One of the authors would like to thank Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MOHE) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Skudai, Johor, Malaysia for the International Doctoral Fellowship (IDF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information System, Faculty of Computing, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

    Muzammil Tahira, Rose Alinda Alias & Aryati Bakri

Authors
  1. Muzammil Tahira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rose Alinda Alias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aryati Bakri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muzammil Tahira.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tahira, M., Alias, R.A. & Bakri, A. Scientometric assessment of engineering in Malaysians universities. Scientometrics 96, 865–879 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0961-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0961-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation