|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Matthias Gnewuch; Klaus Wohlrabe |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates the efficiency of 188 economics departments around the world using data from RePEc. We go beyond the heavily used data envelopment analysis and utilize partial frontier analysis - specifically order-α and order-m - which addresses some of the drawbacks of the standard efficiency frontier analysis and allows for so-called super-efficient departments. We examine the particularities of these approaches and find that the super-efficient departments are not only the “usual suspects”. Furthermore, standard output rankings are not well correlated with our estimated efficiency rankings, which themselves are rather similar. |
| Keywords: | super-efficiency, economics departments, data envelopment analysis, order-α, order-m, free disposal hull, RePEc |
| JEL: | I21 I23 D61 |
| Date: | 2018 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_7013&r=sog |
| By: | Adam Jaffe (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research); Kate Preston (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research) |
| Abstract: | Bibliometric databases on publications and their citations offer the possibility to quantify the scale and impact of this key output of scientific research. But there are many decisions to be made about how to construct these bibliometric measures, and no global consensus on how best to do so. We consider several measures of research output across scientific disciplines in New Zealand and test their sensitivity to a number of methodological choices. Factors considered include which publications to include in the analysis, ways to count publications co-authored by both local and international authors, and procedures for normalising citations. We also explore the potential to assign publications to disciplines by semantic analysis and a way to construct confidence intervals for the measures. The findings provide insight into the extent to which these methodological considerations impact on bibliometric results, and their interpretation, and how uncertainty in the results can be quantified. |
| Keywords: | bibliometrics, citations, normalisation, counting method, journal classification, confidence intervals |
| JEL: | O39 |
| Date: | 2018–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mtu:wpaper:18_09&r=sog |
| By: | Fernandes, Graca; Margarida, Lopes |
| Abstract: | With increased globalization and international competition among research centers and universities, bibliometrics regained a new élan. As a matter of fact it became the most important criteria – sometimes the only one - used for the evaluation of scientific papers and thereby for the faculty’s classification and progression in the academic and research careers. Accreditation procedures and the building of international rankings reinforced this trend as well as the major role played by reference repertoires. This self-feeding and circular process deserves a deeper insight mostly because it generates important knowledge waste. This is so because non-English speaking scientific communities usually face meaningful obstacles to access to the abovementioned repertoires. And accordingly, their scientific papers risk becoming unknown or underutilized even though they develop matters and topics which are relevant for their authors’ societies. At the same time, progression in academic or research careers go in parallel with the reproduction and transmission of official knowledge and generally neglect alternative thinking. In this paper we shed light on these issues. After a brief literature review, we analyze the situation of a Portuguese higher education research institution under both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis which results confirm the above referred main trends. |
| Keywords: | Key Words: bibliometrics; accreditation repertoires; academic and research careers; waste of knowledge. |
| JEL: | I23 I25 |
| Date: | 2017–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:86618&r=sog |