Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we investigate the effects of using four methods of publication counting (complete, whole, fractional, square root fractional) and limiting the number of publications (at researcher and institution levels) on the results of a national research evaluation exercise across fields using Polish data. We use bibliographic information on 0.58 million publications from the 2013–2016 period. Our analysis reveals that the largest effects are in those fields within which a variety publication and cooperation patterns can be observed (e.g. in Physical sciences or History and archeology). We argue that selecting the publication counting method for national evaluation purposes needs to take into account the current situation in the given country in terms of the excellence of research outcomes, level of internal, external and international collaboration, and publication patterns in the various fields of sciences. Our findings show that the social sciences and humanities are not significantly influenced by the different publication counting methods and limiting the number of publications included in the evaluation, as publication patterns in these fields are quite different from those observed in the so-called hard sciences. When discussing the goals of any national research evaluation system, we should be aware that the ways of achieving these goals are closely related to the publication counting method, which can serve as incentives for certain publication practices.
Highlights
Multi-authored publications are the key output within various assessments of national research productivity and impact (Huang, Lin, & Chen, 2011; Zacharewicz, Lepori, Reale, & Jonkers, 2018)
Our paper shows that selecting the publication counting method for national evaluation purposes needs to take into account the current situation in the given country in terms of the excellence of research outcomes, level of internal, external and international collaboration, and publication patterns in the various fields of science
In discussing the goals of any national research evaluation system, we should be aware that the ways of achieving these goals are closely related to publication counting methods
Summary
Multi-authored publications are the key output within various assessments of national research productivity and impact (Huang, Lin, & Chen, 2011; Zacharewicz, Lepori, Reale, & Jonkers, 2018). The two most often used publication counting methods are whole (full) counting and various variants of fractional counting (Larsen, 2008; Waltman & van Eck, 2015) In the former method, each entity (country/institution/author) gets full credit for co-authored papers. Van Hooydonk (1997) argue that fractional counting can be refined into proportional counting to calculate a relative credit depending on the author’s rank on a multiauthored publication. This method is applicable only in fields in which the order of author list is not alphabetical
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
