Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation

By J. Sylvan Katz. 2000

139 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a305dcf64654243aabf9cb847438c8422181b332

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn) (2001, background): “However, Katz (2000) has recently demonstrated a power law such that, other things being equal, the citation rates of a country’s published papers increase with the number of papers published by the country.”
Indicators for Complex Innovation Systems (2006, background): “Indicators that have been adjusted for size or scale are called scaleindependent indicators (Katz, 1999, 2000, 2005).”
Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom (2015, background): “However, while there is some evidence that the impact of research activities increases more than proportionally with institutional size (Katz, 2000), at present we know very little about how the amount and impact of KT activities in a broader sense scale with institutional size.”
National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations (2004, result): “This result has recently been confirmed by Katz (2000).”
How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management (2012, methodology): “This has long been widely acknowledged to be a flawed method given the highly skewed nature of citation distributions (Narin and Hamilton, 1996, pp. 295296; Katz, 2000; Leydesdorff & Bornmann, in press; Leydesdorff and Opthof, 2011).”
Tracking the evolution of waste recycling research using overlay maps of science. (2011, methodology): “This has long been widely acknowledged to be a flawed method given the highly skewed nature of citation distributions (Narin and Hamilton, 1996, pp. 295-296; Katz, 2000; Leydesdorff & Bornmann, 2011; Leydesdorff and Opthof, 2011).”