Comparison and evaluation of domestic and international outputs in Information Science & Technology research of China

SummaryThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate the basic research performance of key projects in the field of information science & technology funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) from both international and national perspectives during the period 1994-2001, based upon the Science Citation Index (SCI) and China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations (CSTPC) databases. We compare the international and domestic outputs of the key projects by applying various scientometric indicators and techniques. The findings indicate that, as a whole, the research performances of the key projects have, to different degrees, increased in both international and domestic papers during the period of study. Semiconductor is the internationally most productive sub-discipline and Automatization is the domestically most productive sub-discipline, measured on average per project. The Combination Impact Factor (CIF), which integrates the CSTPC-IF and the SCI-IF into the evaluation process, is further proposed for the combined evaluation of domestic and international outputs of the key projects. In terms of ratio of CIF relative to the funds in each sub-discipline, results also show that Semiconductor is the most productive sub-discipline and Computer is the least productive one. Using correlation analysis a significant and positive relationship between the SCI-IF and the CIF has been found for the evaluated projects.

[1]  Ronald N. Kostoff.  Citation analysis cross-field normalization: A new paradigm , 2006, Scientometrics.

[2]  Su Xinning,et al.  Developing the Chinese Social Science Citation Index , 2001 .

[3]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications , 1995, Scientometrics.

[4]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Journal Production and Journal Impact Factors , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[5]  Bing Wang,et al.  Chinese science citation database: Its construction and application , 1999, Scientometrics.

[6]  Judith Licea de Arenas,et al.  Significant Mexican research in the health sciences: A bibliometric analysis , 2004, Scientometrics.

[7]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index , 2002, Scientometrics.

[8]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  First evidence of serious language-bias in the use of citation analysis for the evaluation of national science systems , 2000 .

[9]  G. Cox,et al.  ~ " " " ' l I ~ " " -" . : -· " J , 2006 .

[10]  Jacques Gaillard.  La science du Tiers-monde est-elle visible ? , 1989 .

[11]  K. C. Garg.  Scientometrics of laser research in India and China , 2004, Scientometrics.

[12]  Bihui Jin,et al.  Development of the Chinese Scientometric Indicators (CSI) , 2004, Scientometrics.

[13]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Average and global impact of a set of journals , 1996, Scientometrics.

[14]  S Ren,et al.  The Challenge for Chinese Scientific Journals , 1999, Science.

[15]  Subbiah Arunachalam,et al.  Are citation-based quantitative techniques adequate for measuring science on the periphery? , 1989, Scientometrics.

[16]  Concepción S. Wilson,et al.  Scientific productivity and impact of the third world countries (TWC) : a citation study , 1995 .

[17]  Elías Sanz-Casado,et al.  The function of national journals in disseminating applied science , 1995, J. Inf. Sci..

[18]  Tibor Braun,et al.  A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980-1999 , 2003, Scientometrics.

[19]  Aparna Basu,et al.  International Collaboration in Science in India and its Impact on Institutional Performance , 2001, Scientometrics.

[20]  E. Garfield.  Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[21]  Guan Jiancheng,et al.  Evaluation and interpretation of knowledge production efficiency , 2004 .

[22]  Donatella Ugolini,et al.  The visibility of Italian journals , 2003, Scientometrics.

[23]  Narongrit Sombatsompop,et al.  A citation report for Thai academic journals published during 1996-2000 , 2004, Scientometrics.

[24]  R. May.  The Scientific Wealth of Nations , 1997, Science.

[25]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields 1981–1985 , 1989, Scientometrics.

[26]  Jane M. Russell,et al.  Publishing patterns of Mexican scientists: Differences between national and international papers , 2006, Scientometrics.

[27]  Jesús Rey-Rocha,et al.  The role of domestic journals in geographically-oriented disciplines: The case of Spanish journals on earth sciences , 2006, Scientometrics.

[28]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing , 1963 .

[29]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  THE SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE APPEARS IN A SMALL CORE OF JOURNALS , 1996 .

[30]  Nan Ma,et al.  A comparative study of research performance in computer science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[31]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  The scientific wealth of European nations: Taking effectiveness into account , 1998, Scientometrics.

[32]  Bimal Kanti Sen,et al.  A method for determining the impact factor of a non-sci journal , 1989 .

[33]  W. Wayt Gibbs,et al.  Lost Science in the Third World , 1995 .

[34]  Narongrit Sombatsompop,et al.  A modified method for calculating the Impact Factors of journals in ISI Journal Citation Reports: Polymer Science Category in 1997–2001 , 2004, Scientometrics.

[35]  G. Lewison.  Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact , 1998, Gut.

[36]  J. Muñoz,et al.  [Lost Science in the Third World]. , 1996, Gaceta medica de Mexico.

[37]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Subfield problems in applying the Garfield (Impact) Factors in practice , 2002, Scientometrics.

[38]  Jacqueline Leta,et al.  A comparison between domestic and international publications in Brazilian psychiatry , 2003, Scientometrics.

[39]  Liming Liang,et al.  Selection of databases, indicators and models for evaluating research performance of Chinese universities , 2001 .

[40]  Ana María Ramírez,et al.  Renormalized Impact Factor , 2004, Scientometrics.

[41]  Yuan Sun,et al.  Citation Database for Japanese Papers: A new bibliometric tool for Japanese academic society , 2004, Scientometrics.

[42]  E. Garfield,et al.  A STATISTICALLY VALID DEFINITION OF BIAS IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SCIENCE CITATION INDEX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THIRD WORLD JOURNALS , 1997 .

[43]  M J Martín-Sempere,et al.  Assessing quality of domestic scientific journals in geographically oriented disciplines: scientists' judgements versus citations , 2002 .

[44]  Jiancheng Guan,et al.  Evaluation and interpretation of knowledge production efficiency , 2004, Scientometrics.

[45]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance , 2002, Scientometrics.

[46]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  International visibility of Chinese scientific journals , 2002, Scientometrics.

[47]  Bing Wang,et al.  A unified method of counting international and domestic articles , 1999 .

[48]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance , 2001, Scientometrics.

[49]  Leo Egghe,et al.  A general framework for relative impact indicators , 2003 .

[50]  Zhang Haiqi,et al.  Scientometric study on research performance in China , 1997 .

[51]  Vicky Arnold,et al.  An analysis of the research productivity of AIS faculty , 2000, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[52]  Hong Guo,et al.  China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations (CSTPC): History, impact and outlook , 2004, Scientometrics.