A megbízható és objektív publikációs teljesítménymérés szükségessége

A gazdálkodástudományok igénye a változásra és a tudomanymetria.com projekt





business, management and accounting subject area, performance measurement, researcher excellence, scientometrics, Scopus journal articles


The purpose of the present study was to emphasize the central role of international high-quality journal articles in the subject area of business, management, and accounting (BMA) in the scientific community as part of the debate on the interpretation of researcher excellence. The authors believe that international journal articles are essential for the development of their field, successful contributions to international research, and the visibility of their scientific results. Moreover, there is also a policy need for funding to be given primarily to researchers who are expected to advance the discipline globally. In the present study, the authors present a possible motivational tool – the tudomanymetria.com project – in the evaluation of researchers’ excellence of publication activities. They also examine the characteristics of the field and researchers’ ages and discuss the reasons for the most important aspects of change for BMA.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Zoltán Krajcsák, Budapest Business School

Associate Professor

István Szabó, National Research, Development and Innovation Office

Vice President for Science and International Affairs


Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 101, 1129­1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014­1269-8

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high­quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377­386. https://doi.org/10.1162/%20qss_a_00019

Bornmann, L., Wohlrabe, K., & de Moya Anegon, F. (2017). Calculating the excellence shift: How efficiently do institutions produce highly cited papers? Scientometrics, 112, 1859­1864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192­017­2446­3

Cagan, R. (2013). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 6(4), 869­870. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.012955

Caminiti, C., Iezzi, E., Ghetti, C., De’ Angelis, G., & Ferrari, C. (2015). A method for measuring individual research productivity in hospitals: development and feasibility. BMC Health Services Research, 15(468), 1­8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913­015­1130­7

Dobos, I., Michalkó, G., & Sasvári, P. (2020). Messze még a híd? Kelet­Közép­Európa gazdaságtudományi kutatóinak összehasonlítása. Statisztikai Szemle, 98(8), 981­1000. https://doi.org/10.20311/stat2020.8.hu0981

Dobos, I., & Sasvári, P. (2021). A QS World University Rankings 2021 vizsgálata a Scopus­/SciVal­adatbázisok segítségével. Statisztikai Szemle, 99(9), 874­900. https://doi.org/10.20311/stat2021.9.hu0874

Edwards, S. A., & McCarrey, M. W. (1973). Measuring the Performance of Researchers. Research Management, 16(1), 34­41.

Elmore S. A. (2018). The Altmetric Attention Score: What Does It Mean and Why Should I Care? Toxicologic Pathology, 46(3), 252­255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318758294

Elzinga, A. (2012). Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in historical perspective. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 416­428. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs046

Erfanmanesh, M. (2017). Status and quality of open access journals in Scopus. Collection Building, 36(4), 155­162. https://doi.org/10.1108/CB­02­2017­0007

Erfanmanesh, M., Tahira, M., & Abrizah, A. (2017). The Publication Success of 102 Nations in Scopus and the Performance of Their Scopus­Indexed Journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 421­432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109­017­9540­5

Ernø­Kjølhede, E., & Hansson, F. (2011). Measuring research performance during a changing relationship between science and society. Research Evaluation, 20(2), 131­143. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876544

Fang, F. C. & Casadevall, A. (2016). Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery. mBio, 7(2), e00422­16. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00422­16

Hammarfelt, B. (2017). Recognition and reward in the academy: Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 607­623. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM­01­2017­0006

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569­72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

Győrffy, B., Csuka, Gy., Herman, P., & Török, Á. (2020a). Is there a golden age in publication activity?— An analysis of age­related scholarly performance across all scientific disciplines. Scientometrics, 124, 1081­1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192­020­03501­w

Győrffy, B., Herman, P., & Szabó, I. (2020b). Research funding: past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than reviewer scores. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101050

Győrffy, B., Nagy, A. M., Herman, P., & Török, Á. (2018). Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: An evaluation of the first 117 research groups. Scientometrics, 117, 409­426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192­018­2852­1

Henrekson, M., & Waldenström, D. (2011). How Should Research Performance Be Measured? A Study of Swedish Economists. The Manchester School, 79(6), 1139­1156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­9957.2010.02216.x

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Ra- fols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429­431.

Kaplan, S. N., & Strömberg, P. (2004). Characteristics, Contracts, and Actions: Evidence from Venture Capitalist Analyses. The Journal of Finance, 59(5), 2177­ 2210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540­6261.2004.00696.x

Krajcsák, Z. (2021). Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles (RPSA) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries. Publications, 9(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9040050

Liu, W. (2020). Accuracy of funding information in Scopus: a comparative case study. Scientometrics, 124, 803­811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192­020­03458­w

Macháček, V., & Srholek, M. (2021). Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross­country differences, Scientometrics, 126, 1897­1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192­020­03852­4

Mayo­Wilson, E., Li, T., Fusco, N., & Dickersin, K. (2018). Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 2­12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1277

Milat, A. J., Bauman, A. E., & Redman, S. (2015). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961­015­0003­1

Nair, P. K. R. (2005). How (not) to write research papers in agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems, 64, 5­16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457­004­7592­y

Nightingale, J. M., & Marshall, G. (2013). Reprint of “Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance”. Nurse Education in Practice, 13, 429­436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2013.02.005

Van Noorden, R. (2020). Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse. Nature, 578, 200­201. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586­020­00335­7

OECD (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012­en

OECD (2021). Effective policies to foster high-risk/high-reward research. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. 112. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/06913b3b­en

Ragone, A., Mirylenka, K., Casati, F., & Marchese, M. (2013). On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement. Scientometrics, 97, 317­356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192­013­1002­z

Sasvári, P., Teleki, B., & Urbanovics, A. (2021). A direkt finanszírozású publikációs modell lehetőségei Magyarországon. Pénzügyi Szemle, (1), 109­130. https://doi.org/10.35551/PSZ_2021_1_6

Schmoch, U., Schubert, T., Jansen, D., Heidler, R., & von Görtz, R. (2010). How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: a balanced approach. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 2­18. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X492477

Sebrek, Sz. Sz. (2020). A magyar gazdasági felsőoktatás egy nyugati doktori fokozattal rendelkező itthon oktató nézőpontjából: Kitörési pontok beazonosítása és egy lehetséges cselekvési terv. Vezetéstudomány, 51(3), 51­62. https://doi.org/10.14267/VEZTUD.2020.04.05

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 498­502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497

Seglen, P. O. (1998). Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 69(3), 224­229. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679809000920

Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A­L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312), aaf5239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5239

Tregoning, J. (2018). How will you judge me if not by impact factor? Nature, 558, 345. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586­018­05467­5

tudomanymetria.com (2020). Information/Votes 2020. Van den Besselaar, P., & Sandström, U. (2019). Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0202712. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202712

Wellings, S., & Casselden, B. (2019). An exploration into the information­seeking behaviours of engineers and scientists. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 789­800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617742466




How to Cite

Krajcsák, Z., & Szabó, I. (2021). A megbízható és objektív publikációs teljesítménymérés szükségessége: A gazdálkodástudományok igénye a változásra és a tudomanymetria.com projekt. Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review, 52(12), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.14267/VEZTUD.2021.12.04