|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Nuredini, Kaltrina; Latif, Atif; Peters, Isabella |
| Abstract: | In the beginning of 2001 Lawrence showed that Open Access (OA) papers have a citation advantage (Lawrence, 2001) over closed access articles. Since then several research studies have arrived at the same results (e.g., Archambault et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015). According to Wang et al., (2015) OA citation entails more advantage by collecting more usage metrics and social media attention. In recent years altmetrics accumulated from social media are used and studied by researchers (Priem, 2011; Piwowar, 2013; Bornmann, 2014). Many interdisciplinary studies confirm that altmetrics reveal a different impact from citation nevertheless there’s a positive and moderate correlation with each other (Costas et al., 2014; Nuredini & Peters, 2015). Altmetric information differentiates from a discipline to a discipline where the amount of papers found varies across social media sources. Nuredini and Peters (2015) reveal the top 3 most used altmetric sources (Mendeley, Twitter, News) for Economic and Business Studies (EBS) whereas Costas et al. (2014) outline that biomedical and health science publications are mostly found on Facebook, Twitter and Blogs. Since OA journals are free to read it is important to see whether openness can lead to more attention online in comparison with closed journals. Therefore the study looks at OA journals and their altmetric information in the field of EBS and aims at answering the following research questions: RQ1: What is the coverage of OA journal articles in EBS in Altmetric.com and what are frequent social media services generating altmetrics for EBS? RQ2: Do OA journals have more altmetric sources as compared to closed journals/articles? RQ3: Do papers with higher Altmetric.com scores possess higher citation counts and vice versa? |
| Keywords: | altmetrics,open access journals,economics,business studies,citations |
| Date: | 2017 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:esconf:168434&r=sog |
| By: | Buckle, Robert A; Creedy, John |
| Abstract: | This paper examines how the research quality of staff within New Zealand universities has evolved since the introduction in 2003 of the Performance-based Research Fund (PBRF). The analysis uses a database consisting of an anonymous ‘quality evaluation category (QEC) for each individual assessed in each of the three PBRF assessment rounds. Emphasis is on the evaluation of organisational changes in performance. The paper examines the extent to which each university’s Average Quality Score (AQS) changed as a result of changes in the QECs of existing staff over time and from the exit and entry of staff with different scores. The sensitivity of university rankings to the cardinal scale used by the PBRF is also considered and the degree of convergence amongst the universities is assessed. The data also include information about the age of staff evaluated in PBRF, and this is used to evaluate changes in the age distribution of staff across universities, and the ages of those making transitions within universities and between grades. The results reveal a systematic ageing of university staff in NZ and a significant change in the grade distribution by age, and age distribution by grade. A number of hypotheses regarding organisation change in response to the introduction of PBRF are discussed and tested by comparing universities with different patterns of change. |
| Keywords: | Education, New Zealand universities, Performance-based Research Fund, Productivity, Research, |
| Date: | 2017 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:vuw:vuwcpf:6574&r=sog |