Research Performance Reporting is Fallacious

Butler, A; Xu, G; Musial, K

Research Performance Reporting is Fallacious

Butler, A

Xu, G

Musial, K

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Proceedings - 2018 5th International Conference on Behavioral, Economic, and Socio-Cultural Computing, BESC 2018, 2018, pp. 1 - 5
Issue Date:: 2018-07-02

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted manuscriptAdobe PDF (689.08 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Butler, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7088-3708	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Xu, G https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4493-6663	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Musial, K https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6038-7647	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-11-30T18:14:54Z
dc.date.issued	2018-07-02	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Proceedings - 2018 5th International Conference on Behavioral, Economic, and Socio-Cultural Computing, BESC 2018, 2018, pp. 1 - 5	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9781728102078	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/131632
dc.description.abstract	© 2018 IEEE. Citation-based research performance reporting is contentious. The methods used to categorize research and researchers are misleading and somewhat arbitrary. This paper compares cohorts of social science categorized citation data and ultimately shows that assumptions of comparability are spurious. A subject area comparison using research field distributions and networks between a 'reference author', bibliographically coupled data, keyword-obtained data, social science data and highly cited social science author data shows very dissimilar field foci with one dataset very much being medically focused. This leads to the question whether subject area classifications should continue to be used as the basis for the plethora of rankings and lists that use such groupings. It is suggested that bibliographic coupling and dynamic topic classifiers would better inform citation data comparisons.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Proceedings - 2018 5th International Conference on Behavioral, Economic, and Socio-Cultural Computing, BESC 2018	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1109/BESC.2018.8697265	en_US
dc.title	Research Performance Reporting is Fallacious	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Computer Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - AAI - Advanced Analytics Institute Research Centre
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Students
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018 IEEE. Citation-based research performance reporting is contentious. The methods used to categorize research and researchers are misleading and somewhat arbitrary. This paper compares cohorts of social science categorized citation data and ultimately shows that assumptions of comparability are spurious. A subject area comparison using research field distributions and networks between a 'reference author', bibliographically coupled data, keyword-obtained data, social science data and highly cited social science author data shows very dissimilar field foci with one dataset very much being medically focused. This leads to the question whether subject area classifications should continue to be used as the basis for the plethora of rankings and lists that use such groupings. It is suggested that bibliographic coupling and dynamic topic classifiers would better inform citation data comparisons.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/131632