A flexible bibliometric approach for the assessment of professorial appointments

Recruitment and professorial appointment procedures are crucial for the administration and management of universities and higher education institutions in order to guarantee a certain level of performance quality and reputation. The complementary use of quantitative and objective bibliometric analyses is meant to be an enhancement for the assessment of candidates and a possible antidote for subjective, discriminatory and corrupt practices. In this paper, we present the Vienna University bibliometric approach, offering a method which relies on a variety of basicindicators and further control parameters in order to address the multidimensionality of the problem and to foster comprehensibility. Our “top counts approach” allows an appointment committee to pick and choose from a portfolio of indicators according to the actual strategic alignment. Furthermore, control and additional data help to understand disciplinary publication habits, to unveil concealed aspects and to identify individual publication strategies of the candidates. Our approach has already been applied to 14 professorial appointment procedures (PAP) in the life sciences, earth and environmental sciences and social sciences, comprising 221 candidates in all. The usefulness of the bibliometric approach was confirmed by all heads of appointment committees in the life sciences. For the earth and environmental sciences as well as the social sciences, the usefulness was less obvious and sometimes questioned due to the low coverage of the candidates’ publication output in the traditional citation data sources. A retrospective assessment of all hitherto performed PAP also showed an overlap between the committees’ designated top candidates and the bibliometric top candidates to a certain degree.

[1]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Journal impact measures in bibliometric research , 2004, Scientometrics.

[2]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[3]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[4]  G. Holden,et al.  Bibliometrics , 2005, Social work in health care.

[5]  Félix de Moya Anegón,et al.  The SJR indicator: A new indicator of journals' scientific prestige , 2009, ArXiv.

[6]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems , 2004 .

[7]  Laurent Linnemer,et al.  Publish or peer-rich ? The role of skills and networks in hiring economics professors ☆ , 2008 .

[8]  Juan Gorraiz,et al.  Key factors and considerations in the assessment of international collaboration: a case study for Austria and six countries , 2011, Scientometrics.

[9]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  Revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[10]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[11]  G. Laudel What do we measure by co-authorships? , 2002 .

[12]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , 2005 .

[13]  Juan Gorraiz,et al.  Bibliometric practices and activities at the University of Vienna , 2012 .

[14]  W. Glänzel Seven Myths in Bibliometrics About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies , 2008 .

[15]  Stefano Allesina,et al.  Measuring Nepotism through Shared Last Names: The Case of Italian Academia , 2011, PloS one.

[16]  H. Francis,et al.  The agony and the ecstasy. , 1998, Nursing times.

[17]  Irving Stone,et al.  The Agony and the Ecstasy , 1961 .

[18]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Individual-level evaluative bibliometrics - the politics of its use and abuse , 2013 .

[19]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact , 1986, Scientometrics.

[20]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators , 2010 .

[21]  Laurent Linnemer,et al.  Publish or Peer-rich , 2008 .

[22]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Career advancement and scientific performance in universities , 2014, Scientometrics.

[23]  Zameer Shah,et al.  Measuring science , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  Jonathan Adams,et al.  Profiling citation impact: A new methodology , 2007, Scientometrics.

[25]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  On the opportunities and limitations in using bibliometric indicators in a policy relevant context , 2003 .

[26]  Bethany S. Dohleman Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek , 2006 .

[27]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[28]  William Shockley,et al.  On the Statistics of Individual Variations of Productivity in Research Laboratories , 1957, Proceedings of the IRE.

[29]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication , 1984 .

[30]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics , 2011, Scientometrics.

[31]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies , 2004, Scientometrics.

[32]  J. Nicolaisen Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics , 2010 .

[33]  A. Raan Measuring Science: Capita Selecta of Current Main Issues , 2004 .

[34]  Peter Weingart,et al.  Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[35]  Jean-Marie Bach,et al.  ON THE PROPER USE OF BIBLIOMETRICS TO EVALUATE INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHERS , 2011 .

[36]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Analysis of co-authorship patterns at the individual level , 2014 .

[37]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011 , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[38]  Fabio Ferlazzo,et al.  Measuring Nepotism through Shared Last Names: Are We Really Moving from Opinions to Facts? , 2012, PloS one.

[39]  Julian Warner,et al.  A critical review of the application of citation studies to the Research Assessment Exercises , 2000, J. Inf. Sci..

[40]  N. Zinovyeva,et al.  The Role of Connections in Academic Promotions , 2014 .

[41]  O. Persson,et al.  How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis , 2009 .

[42]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[43]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[44]  Denice Cora-Bramble,et al.  Minority Faculty Recruitment, Retention and Advancement: Applications of a Resilience-based Theoretical Framework , 2006, Journal of health care for the poor and underserved.

[45]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  The source normalized impact per paper is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[46]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators , 1996, Scientometrics.

[47]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy , 2006, Scientometrics.

[48]  Juan Gorraiz,et al.  The Importance of Bilateral and Multilateral Differentiation in the Assessment of International Collaboration-a case study for Austria and six countries , 2013 .

[49]  Alfred J. Lotka,et al.  The frequency distribution of scientific productivity , 1926 .

[50]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  On the "multi-dimensionality" of ranking and the role of bibliometrics in university assessment , 2009 .

[51]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2008, Scientometrics.

[52]  Carroll-Ann Trotman,et al.  Faculty recruitment, retention, and success in dental academia. , 2002, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[53]  E. Garfield The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[54]  Neil R. Powe,et al.  The role of cultural diversity climate in recruitment, promotion, and retention of faculty in academic medicine , 2005, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[55]  R. Danell,et al.  Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday , 2009 .

[56]  Yvonne Benschop,et al.  Transparency in Academic Recruitment: A Problematic Tool for Gender Equality? , 2010 .

[57]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Institutions of Public Science and New Search Regimes , 2015 .

[58]  B. Martin Academic patronage , 2009 .

[59]  J. Waljee,et al.  Bibliometric Indices and Academic Promotion within Plastic Surgery , 2014, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[60]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[61]  Glänzel Wolfgang,et al.  A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication , 2004 .

[62]  Per O. Seglen,et al.  The Skewness of Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[63]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  Towards Evidence-based Reform of European Universities , 2008 .

[64]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[65]  Juan Gorraiz,et al.  On the temporal stability of Garfield’s Impact Factor and its suitability to identify hot papers , 2012 .

[66]  H. Moed Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Information Science & Knowledge Management) , 2005 .