The Experts below are selected from a list of 2191806 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Giovanni Abramo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Bibliometric evaluation of Research Performance: where do we stand?
Voprosy Obrazovaniya Educational Studies Moscow, 2017Co-Authors: Giovanni AbramoAbstract:This work provides a critical examination of the most popular bibliometric indicators and methodologies to assess the Research Performance of individuals and institutions. The aim is to raise the fog and make practitioners more aware of the inherent risks in do-it-myself practices, or cozy out-of-the-shelf solutions to the difficult question of how to evaluate Research. The manuscript also proposes what we believe is the correct approach to bibliometric evaluation of Research Performance.
-
Funnel plots for visualizing uncertainty in the Research Performance of institutions
Journal of Informetrics, 2015Co-Authors: Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D'angelo, Leonardo GrilliAbstract:Research Performance values are not certain. Performance indexes should therefore be accompanied by uncertainty measures, to establish whether the Performance of a unit is truly outstanding and not the result of random fluctuations. In this work we focus on the evaluation of Research institutions on the basis of average individual Performance, where uncertainty is inversely related to the number of Research staff. We utilize the funnel plot, a tool originally developed in meta-analysis, to measure and visualize the uncertainty in the Performance values of Research institutions. As an illustrative example, we apply the funnel plot to represent the uncertainty in the assessed Research Performance for Italian universities active in biochemistry
-
Should the Research Performance of scientists be distinguished by gender
Journal of Informetrics, 2015Co-Authors: Giovanni Abramo, Tindaro Cicero, Ciriaco Andrea D'angeloAbstract:The literature on gender differences in Research Performance seems to suggest a gap between men and women, where the former outperform the latter. Whether one agrees with the different factors proposed to explain the phenomenon, it is worthwhile to verify if comparing the Performance within each gender, rather than without distinction, gives significantly different ranking lists. If there were some structural factor that determined a penalty in Performance of female Researchers compared to their male peers, then under conditions of equal capacities of men and women, any comparative evaluations of individual Performance that fail to account for gender differences would lead to distortion of the judgments in favor of men. In this work we measure the extent of differences in rank between the two methods of comparing Performance in each field of the hard sciences: for professors in the Italian university system, we compare the distributions of Research Performance for men and women and subsequently the ranking lists with and without distinction by gender. The results are of interest for the optimization of efficient selection in formulation of recruitment, career advancement and incentive schemes.
-
The impact of unproductive and top Researchers on overall university Research Performance
Journal of Informetrics, 2013Co-Authors: Giovanni Abramo, Tindaro Cicero, Ciriaco Andrea D'angeloAbstract:Unlike competitive higher education systems, non-competitive systems show relatively uniform distributions of top Researchers and low performers among universities. In this study, we examine the impact of unproductive and top faculty members on overall Research Performance of the university they belong to. Furthermore, we analyze the potential relationship between Research productivity of a university and the indexes of concentration of unproductive and top Researchers. Research Performance is evaluated using a bibliometric approach, through publications indexed on the Web of Science between 2004 and 2008. The set analyzed consists of all Italian universities active in the hard sciences.
John A. Barrick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Effect of Code Section Knowledge on Tax‐Research Performance
Journal of the American Taxation Association, 2001Co-Authors: John A. BarrickAbstract:This study investigates whether Code section knowledge, which allows direct access to relevant authority, affects tax‐Research Performance. This understanding is important because tax professionals are constantly searching the Code for relevant authority to resolve their clients' Research questions, and because the Code is the ultimate source of tax authority. The Research question is examined through an experiment that compares the Research Performance of experienced tax professionals and inexperienced graduate tax students when performing either a Code section or a topical search. The results indicate that experienced subjects are better able than inexperienced subjects to use Code section knowledge in tax Research. In addition, the experienced subjects using the Code section method retrieved more relevant authority than any other group of subjects. Taken together, the results provide empirical evidence that Code section knowledge complements tax professionals' technical knowledge and improves tax‐resea...
Abbas Valadkhani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Ranking and clustering of the faculties of commerce Research Performance in Australia
Applied Economics, 2010Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Simon VilleAbstract:There is a growing policy focus in Australian higher education on quantitative Research Performance assessment. However, most of the analysis has addressed aggregate Performance at the institutional level, an approach inconsistent with recent policy emphasis on diversity among universities and one that ignores Performance variations across disciplines. Using averaged and all available data for 2000-2004, cluster analysis is used to classify Australian Commerce Faculties into groups that exhibit similar Research Performance, measured by publication, PhD completion and secured competitive Research grant funding. We also use factor analysis to generate full-multidimensional rankings within the resulting two or three clusters. It is found that in terms of total Research output, with the exception of Adelaide all the Group of 8 (Go8) members plus University of Technology, Sydney and Griffith always belong to 'Clusters A'. However, when Research Performance is expressed in per academic staff terms, an additional 11 universities join this same cluster. Our results additionally show that eight Australian faculties of Commerce not only possess low total Research output but their per capita Performance is also poor.
-
Assessing the Research Performance of Australian Universities
2006Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:This paper identifies new classifications of Australian universities based on their total and per-academic staff Research outputs using the data for the period 1998-2002. We define Research Performance in terms of audited numbers of PhD completions, publications and grants (in accordance with rules established by the Department of Education, Science and Training). Our analysis indicates that (a) the highest achievers consists of the seven Group of Eight (Go8) universities; (b) the top-three Research performers are the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland in terms of total Research Performance and the Universities of Melbourne, Adelaide and Western Australia in per academic staff terms.
-
Ranking and Clustering Australian University Research Performance, 1998-2002
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2006Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:This paper clusters and ranks the Research Performance of thirty-seven Australian universities over the period 1998-2002. Research Performance is measured according to audited numbers of PhD completions, publications and grants (in accordance with rules established by the Department of Education, Science and Training) and analysed in both total and per academic staff terms. Hierarchical cluster analysis supports a binary division between fifteen higher and twenty-two lower-performing universities, with the specification in per academic staff terms identifying the self-designated Research intensive "Group of Eight" (Go8) universities, plus several others in the better-performing group. Factor analysis indicates that the top-three Research performers are the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland in terms of total Research Performance and the Universities of Melbourne, Adelaide and Western Australia in per academic staff terms.
Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an instrument for the self appraisal of scientific Research Performance
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2009Co-Authors: James C Ryan, Syed Awais Ahmad TipuAbstract:Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present findings related to an instrument for the self-appraisal of scientists' Research Performance, and highlight the suitability of self-appraisal instruments for members of the scientific community. Design/methodology/approach - An examination of the literature on self-appraisal and the measurement of scientific Research is presented. The initial development of the instrument employed qualitative methods through interview and discussions with PhD-qualified scientific Researchers ( Findings - Results suggest that the instrument may be a reliable measure of Research Performance when used in a non-critical context. Research limitations/implications - While the instrument shows promise, further Research is needed to examine aspects of inter-rater reliability. Additional Research is also needed to further examine relationships between it and other measures of Research Performance at the same level of analysis. While the usefulness and validity of this instrument at the “international level” has been examined, further Research is needed to examine the relative validity and reliability of the instrument at the “institutional” and “national” levels. Practical implications - The instrument provides a useful and cost-effective tool for use in the Performance appraisal process of Research scientists, and for use in focusing discussion on Performance for developmental purposes. It is also useful as a Research tool for the timely and cost-effective measurement of Research Performance at an institutional, national and international level. Originality/value - The paper presents an original paper and pencil instrument for the appraisal of scientific Research Performance at an institutional, national, and international level.
Andrew C. Worthington - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessing the Research Performance of Australian Universities
2006Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:This paper identifies new classifications of Australian universities based on their total and per-academic staff Research outputs using the data for the period 1998-2002. We define Research Performance in terms of audited numbers of PhD completions, publications and grants (in accordance with rules established by the Department of Education, Science and Training). Our analysis indicates that (a) the highest achievers consists of the seven Group of Eight (Go8) universities; (b) the top-three Research performers are the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland in terms of total Research Performance and the Universities of Melbourne, Adelaide and Western Australia in per academic staff terms.
-
Ranking and Clustering Australian University Research Performance, 1998-2002
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2006Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:This paper clusters and ranks the Research Performance of thirty-seven Australian universities over the period 1998-2002. Research Performance is measured according to audited numbers of PhD completions, publications and grants (in accordance with rules established by the Department of Education, Science and Training) and analysed in both total and per academic staff terms. Hierarchical cluster analysis supports a binary division between fifteen higher and twenty-two lower-performing universities, with the specification in per academic staff terms identifying the self-designated Research intensive "Group of Eight" (Go8) universities, plus several others in the better-performing group. Factor analysis indicates that the top-three Research performers are the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland in terms of total Research Performance and the Universities of Melbourne, Adelaide and Western Australia in per academic staff terms.
