On the comparison of extensive and intensive measures of the efficiency of scientific groups

TitleOn the comparison of extensive and intensive measures of the efficiency of scientific groups
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2014
AuthorsMryglod, OI, Kenna, R, Holovatch, Yu.V, Berche, B
Abbreviated Key TitleDopov. Nac. akad. nauk Ukr.
DOI10.15407/dopovidi2014.03.075
Issue3
SectionPhysics
Pagination75-81
Date Published3/2014
LanguageUkrainian
Abstract

The problem of scientific efficiency evaluation is discussed. On the one hand, there is no simple but reliable way to assess the individual or collective scientific performance. It is a challenge to decide which approach, i. e. peer-review or citation-based indicators, should be used for this purpose. On the other hand, differences between the disciplines should be taken into account for the assessment. We analyze correlations between values of citation-based impact indicators and peer-review scores for British scientific groups in several academic disciplines, from natural to social sciences and humanities.

Keywordsefficiency, extensive measures, intensive measures, scientific groups
References: 

1. Lazer D. et al. Science, 2009, 323: 721–723; Rev. Mod. Phys., 2009, 81: 591–646.
2. Dobrov G. M. The science of science. Kyiv: Nauk. dumka, 1989 (in Russian).
3. Meyers R. A. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science. Berlin: Springer, 2009.
4. Diestel R. Graph theory. Berlin: Springer, 2005.
5. Galam S. Sociophysics: A Physicist’s modeling of psycho-political phenomena. New York: Springer, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2032-3
6. Holovach Yu., fon Ferber K., Olemskoi O., Holovach T., Mryglod O. et al. Zhurn. fiz. doslidzhen, 2006, 10: 247–291.
7. Holovatch Yu. (Ed). Order, disorder and criticality. Advanced problems of phase transition theory. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004. Vol. 2; 2007. Vol. 3. 2012.
8. van Raan A. F. J. Scientometrics, 2005, 62, No. 1: 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6
9. Bornmann L. Scientometrics, 2012, 91: 857–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0547-y
10. De Bellis N. Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2009.
11. Mryglod O., Kenna R., Holovatch Yu., Berche B. Scientometrics, 2013, 95, No. 1: 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0874-7
12. Mryglod O., Kenna R., Holovatch Yu., Berche B. Scientometrics, 2013, 97, No. 3: 767–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1058-9
13. Mryglod O., Kenna R., Holovatch Yu., Berche B. Visn. NAN Ukr., 2013 accepted for publication. Retrieved from http://www.icmp.lviv.ua/ sites/default/files/preprints/pdf/1302U.pdf) (in Ukrainian).
14. Kenna R., Berche B. Europhys. Lett., 2010, 90: 58002. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/90/58002
15. Kenna R., Berche B. Scientometrics, 2010, 86, No. 2.: 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0282-9