This paper describes an alternative way of assessing journals considering a broader perspective of its impact. The Area-based connectedness (ABC) to society of journals applied here contributes to the assessment of the dissemination task of journals but with more data it may also contribute to the assessment of other missions.
The ABC approach assesses the performance of research actors, in this case journals, considering the characteristics of the research areas in which they are active. Each paper in a journal inherits the characteristics of its area. These areas are defined by a publication-based classification. The characteristics of areas relate to 5 dimensions of connectedness to society (news, policy, industrial R&D, technology and local interest) and are calculated by bibliometric indicators and social media metrics.
In the paper, I illustrate the approach by showing the results for a few journals. They illustrate the diverse profiles that journals may have. We are able to provide a profile for each journal in the Web of Science database. The profiles we present show an appropriate view on the journals’ societal connectedness.
The classification I apply to perform the analyses is a CWTS in house classification based on Web of Science data. As such the application depends on the (updates of) that system. The classification is available at www.leidenranking.com
The dimensions of connectedness discussed in this paper relate to the dissemination task of journals but further development of this method may provide more options to monitor the tasks/mission of journals.
The ABC approach is a unique way to assess performance or impact of research actors considering the characteristics of the areas in which output is published and as such less prone to manipulation or gaming.
At present, China is a front-runner in the number of scientific outputs, but the quality remains to be improved. In order to respond to international competition and to satisfy domestic development needs, the orientation of China’s science and technology evaluation has changed from encouraging international publications to pursuing excellence and encouraging science and technology for promoting development. One of the policies is the introduction of international experts in science and technology evaluation when conditions permit. For instance
evaluations for researchers or institutions at different career or development stages. Typical reasons for this type of evaluations include promotion and funding. Universities and scientific institutions may have a legal obligation to perform regular assessments of their research work.
Types of research or performance: basic or applied research in the natural sciences, basic or applied research in the social sciences and humanities, contributing to interdisciplinary research, advancing clinical medicine, patenting, technique & product development, policy research, social
University benchmarking and assessment has long been a heated area of research and practices with many approaches and rankings. However, there exist different types of universities with different missions and sizes, resulting in varied emphases on research, teaching, or industrial/regional development. Even within research-oriented universities, some are more focused on basic research, while other ones aim more at applications. Most general ranking systems cannot show the degree to which ShanghaiTech University (hereafter: ShanghaiTech) as a
model tailored specifically to artistic research output in the future. By expanding on the ongoing stakeholder-driven development of this model and a test case undertaken to gauge its performance, the paper shows how a culture of evaluation hinges on the generation of a culture of registration. This, in turn, offers crucial resources for disciplinary meta-reflection in the form of a centralized database of artistic research output. As the test case shows, the demand for registration and disclosure associated with quality assessment encourages the disclosure and
Lixue Zou, Li Wang, Yingqi Wu, Caroline Ma, Sunny Yu and Xiwen Liu
Today, R&D plays important roles in enhancing national competitiveness and sustainability. Many traditionally scientifically under-developed countries are now catching up and the global R&D landscape has seen dramatic changes. Facing the continuing competition, researchers, technology innovators, and policy makers all need to grasp the structure and developments of global research and innovation, so dynamical monitoring and dignosing of research fields become a strategic endeavor at higher levels of research planning and policy making
topic, but we concentrate on a few recent developments. Yet, among the many papers written by colleagues on delayed recognition we single out for mention: ( Bornmann et al., 2018 ; Burrell, 2005 ; Du & Wu, 2016 ; El Aichouchi & Gorry, 2018 ; Garfield, 1980 ; Glänzel et al., 2003 ; Ke et al., 2015 ; Li & Ye, 2012 ; van Raan, 2004 , 2015 , 2017 ).
In this short paper we will discuss three aspects: naming of the phenomenon, recent methods based on a cumulative citation curve and re-interpretation of delayed recognition as a fuzzy concept.
Naming of the
Katharina Petri, Steffen Masik, Marco Danneberg, Peter Emmermacher and Kerstin Witte
. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research , 7 (1), 1-3. DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2018.07.001453
Petri, K., Witte, K., Bandow, N., Emmermacher, P., Masik, S., Danneberg, M., Salb, S., Zhang, L. & Brunnett, G. (2017b). Development of an autonomous character in karate kumite. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Computer Science in Sport (IACSS 2017), Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 663, 124-135. Cham: Springer International Publishing . DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-67846-1_13
Rebenitsch, L. & Owen, C. (2016). Review on cybersickness