Evaluating the performance of institutions with different resources is not easy, any citation distribution comparisons are strongly affected by the differences in the number of articles published. The paper introduces a methodfor comparing citation distributions of research groups that differ in size. The citation distribution of a larger group is reduced by a certain factor and compared with the original distribution of a smaller group. Expected values and tolerance intervals of the reduced set of citations are calculated. A comparison of both distributions can be conveniently viewed in agraph. The size-independent reduced Hirsch index - a function of reducing factor that allows the comparison of groups within a scientific field - is calculated in the same way. The method can be used for comparing groups or units differing in full-time equivalent, funding or the number of researchers,for comparing countries by population, gross domestic product, etc. It is shown that for the calculation of the reduced Hirsch index, the upper part of the original citation distribution is sufficient. The method is illustrated through several case comparisons.
COBISS.SI-ID: 30069465
This study examines the effect of international collaboration of Slovenian authors and the status of journals where papers are published (as determined by their impact factors) on the impact of papers as measured by the number of citations papers receive. Research programme groups working in Slovenia in the2004-2008 period in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, biotechnology, and medical science were used for analyses. The results of the analyses show that the effects of the two factors differ among the fields. We discuss possible reasons for this, including the possibility that differences are the result of Sloveniaćs science policy.
COBISS.SI-ID: 30085593
In this study funding of research from public sources, research potentials, that is number of researchers, and scientific results (scientific papers authored or co-authored by researchers from Slovenia) are analysed. Research fields of medicine are analysed more in-depth and comparatively with some other research fields, for better understanding of differences, that might be a result of long term science policy in Slovenia. The aim of this study was to find out if relatively big differences in research potentials and public funding are also visible in the number of scientific papers and their impact Research potential were defined as number of research groups and number of researchers (head count) and expressed in their capacities to research in FTE (full time equivalent). Research results data were analysed and evaluated basically as bibliometric data, number of papers published in ISI – indexed journals, and their impact, number of received citations. Quantitative indicators, which were used for the evaluation of research results, could be divided in two groups: indicators of scientific activities and indicators of scientific productivity and impact. We have analysed more thoroughly investment from public sources in Higher education and Government sector as that is the research, which we had concentrated our interests on. Scientific papers are mostly the result of performance in Higher education sector and Government sector. Differences in research potentials and public funding are influencing only partly the number of scientific papers, but might have more to do with their impact. Results show that the number of papers published in authorship or co-authorship of researchers from Slovenia is growing quickly especially in the subfields of clinical medicine. Comparison of number of papers per million inhabitants puts Slovenia slightly above EU average but in terms of impact, number of citations received per average article, Slovenia is on penultimate place among EU member states. Size of human research potentials in the fields of medicine in Slovenia is modest. Majority of researchers are also engaged in medical practice and pedagogical work. Consecutively funds from public sources for research per researcher are low. Research fields of medicine need in the first place the enlargement of human research resources, which can then give basis for rise in funding and then also the impact of its research results might be closer to EU and world average.
COBISS.SI-ID: 30236889
The paper discusses the role of scientometric indicators in peer-review selection of research project proposals. An ex post facto evaluation was made of three calls for research project proposals in Slovenia: 2003 with a peer review system designed in a way that conflict of interest was not avoided effectively, 2005 with a sound international peer-review system with minimized conflict of interest influence but a limited number of reviewers, and 2008 with a combination of scientometric indicators and a sound international peer review with minimized conflict of interest influence. The hypothesis was that the three different peer review systems would have different correlations with the same set of scientometric indicators. In the last two decision-making systems (2005 and 2008) where conflict of interest was effectively avoided, we have a high percentage (65%) of projects that would have been selected in the call irrespective of the method (peer review or bibliometrics solely). In contrast, in the 2003 call there is a significantly smaller percentage (49%) of projects that would have been selected in the call irrespective of the method (peer review or bibliometrics solely). It was shown that while scientometric indicators can hardly replace the peer-review system as the ultimate decision-making and support system, they can reveal its weaknesses on one hand and on the other can verify peer-review scores and minimize conflict of interest if necessary.
COBISS.SI-ID: 42424418