A megbízható és objektív publikációs teljesítménymérés szükségessége
A gazdálkodástudományok igénye a változásra és a tudomanymetria.com projekt
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14267/VEZTUD.2021.12.04Keywords:
business, management and accounting subject area, performance measurement, researcher excellence, scientometrics, Scopus journal articlesAbstract
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.
Downloads
References
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
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors assign copyright to Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review. Authors are responsible for permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.