A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance
Clicks: 92
ID: 282276
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
27.3
/100
92 views
39 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #135 of 803 articles by views in arXiv
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 803 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between author-level bibliometric
indicators and the researchers the "measure", exemplified across five academic
seniorities and four disciplines. Using cluster methodology, the disciplinary
and seniority appropriateness of author-level indicators is examined.
Publication and citation data for 741 researchers across Astronomy,
Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health was collected in Web of
Science (WoS). Forty-four indicators of individual performance were computed
using the data. A two-step cluster analysis using IBM SPSS version 22 was
performed, followed by a risk analysis and ordinal logistic regression to
explore cluster membership. Indicator scores were contextualized using the
individual researcher's curriculum vitae. Four different clusters based on
indicator scores ranked researchers as low, middle, high and extremely high
performers. The results show that different indicators were appropriate in
demarcating ranked performance in different disciplines. In Astronomy the h2
indicator, sum pp top prop in Environmental Science, Q2 in Philosophy and
e-index in Public Health. The regression and odds analysis showed individual
level indicator scores were primarily dependent on the number of years since
the researcher's first publication registered in WoS, number of publications
and number of citations. Seniority classification was secondary therefore no
seniority appropriate indicators were confidently identified. Cluster
methodology proved useful in identifying disciplinary appropriate indicators
providing the preliminary data preparation was thorough but needed to be
supplemented by other analyses to validate the results. A general disconnection
between the performance of the researcher on their curriculum vitae and the
performance of the researcher based on bibliometric indicators was observed.
| Reference Key |
wildgaard2015a
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Lorna Wildgaard |
| Journal | arXiv |
| Year | 2015 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.