Research evaluation at CWTS

Meaningful metrics, evaluation in context

Ed Noyons, Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University

RAS Moscow, 10 October 2013

Outline

• Centre of science and Technology Studies (CWTS, Leiden University) history in short;

• CWTS research program;• Recent advances.

History in Short

25 years CWTS

3

25 years CWTS history in short (1985-2010)

• Started around 1985 by Anthony van Raan and Henk Moed; One and a half person funded by university;

• Context is science policy, research management;

• Mainly contract research and services (research evaluation);

• Staff stable around 15 people (10 researchers);

• Main focus on publication and citation data (in particular Web of Science).

25 years CWTS history in short (2010 - …)

• Block funding since 2008;• Since 2010

– moving from Services mainly with some research to:

– Research institute with services;– New director Paul Wouters;

• New recruitments: now ~35 people.

5

CWTS Research programme

Research and services

6

Bibliometrics (in context science policy) is ...

Opportunities

• Research Accountability => evaluation• Need for standardization, objectivity• More data available

Vision

• Quantitative analyses• Beyond the ‘lamppost’

– Other data– Other outputs

• Research 360º– Input – Societal impact/quality– Researchers themselves

Background of the CWTS research program

• Already existing questions• New questions:

1. How do scientific and scholarly practices interact with the “social technology” of research evaluation and monitoring knowledge systems?

2. What are the characteristics, possibilities and limitations of advanced metrics and indicators of science, technology and innovation?

Current CWTS research organization

• Chairs– Scientometrics – Science policy– Science Technology & innovation

• Working groups– Advanced bibliometrics– Evaluation Practices in Context (EPIC)– Social sciences & humanities– Society using research Evaluation (SURE)– Career studies

Back to Bibliometrics

A look under the lamp post

12

Recent advances at CWTS

• Platform: Leiden ranking• Indicators: New normalization to address:

1. Multidisciplinary journals2. (Journal based) classification

• Structuring and mapping– Advanced network analyses– Publication based classification– Visualization: VOSviewer

The Leiden Ranking

http://www.leidenranking.com

14

Platform: Leiden Ranking http://www.leidenranking.com

• Based on Web of Science (2008-2011);• Only universities (~500);• Only dimension is scientific research; • Indicators (state of the art):

– Production– Impact (normalized and‘absolute’)– Collaboration.

15

Leiden Ranking – world top 3 (PPtop10%)

16

PPtop10%: Normalized impact Stability:

Intervals to enhance certainty

Russian universities (impact)

Russian universities (collaboration)

Impact Normalization (MNCS)

Dealing with field differences

19

20

Background and approach

• Impact is measured by numbers of citations received;

• Excluding self-citations;

• Fields differ regarding citing behavior;

• One citation is one field is more worth than in the other;

• Normalization– By journal category– By citing context.

Issues related to journal category-based approach

• Scope of category;• Scope of journal.

21

Journal classification ‘challenge’(scope of category) (e.g. cardio research)

23

Approach Source-normalized MNCS

• Source normalization (a.k.a. citing-side normalization):– No field classification system;– Citations are weighted differently depending on

the number of references in the citing publication; – Hence, each publication has its own environment

to be normalized by.

24

Source-normalized MNCS (cont’d)

• Normalization based on citing context;• Normalization at the level of individual papers

(e.g., X)• Average number of refs in papers citing X;• Only active references are considered:

– Refs in period between publication and being cited– Refs covered by WoS.

Networks and visualization

Collaboration, connectedness, similarity, ...

25

VOSviewer: collaboration Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU)

26

• WoS (1993-2012)• Top 50 most collaborative partners• Co-published papers

Other networks

• Structure of science output (maps of science);

• Oeuvres of actors;• Similarity of actors (benchmarks based

on profile);• …

27

Publication based classificationStructure of science independent from journal classification

28

Publication based classification (WoS 1993-2012)• Publication based clustering (each pub in one cluster);

• Independent from journals;

• Clusters based on Citing relations between publications

• Three levels:– Top (21)– Intermediate (~800)– Bottom (~22,000)

• Challenges:– Labeling– Dynamics.

29

Map of all sciences (784 fields, WoS 1993-2012) Each circle represents

a cluster of pubs

Surface represents volume

Distance represents relatedness

(citation traffic)

Physical sciencesEarth,

Environ, agricult sciences

Biomed sciences

Cognitive sciences

Social and health

sciences Maths, computer sciences

Colors indicate clusters of fields, disciplines

Positioning of an actor in map

• Activity overall (world and e.g., Lomonosov Moscow State Univ, MSU)o Proportion Lomonosov relative to world;

• Activity per ‘field’ (world and MSU)o Proportion MSU in field;

• Relative activity MSU per ‘field’;

• Scores between 0 (Blue) and 2 (Red);

• ‘1’ if proportion same as overall (Green).

31

Positioning Lomonosov MSU

32

Positioning Lomonosov MSU

33

Positioning Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)

34

Alternative view Lomonosov (density)

35

Using the map: benchmarks

• Benchmarking on the basis of research profile– Distribution of output over 784 fields;

• Profile of each university in Leiden Ranking;– Distributions of output over 784 fields;

• Compare to MSU profile;• Identify most similar.

36

Most similar to MSU (LR) universities• FR - University of Paris-Sud 11• RU - Saint Petersburg State University• JP - Nagoya University• FR - Joseph Fourier University• CN - Peking University• JP - University of Tokyo

37

Density view MSU

38

Density view St. Petersburg State University

39

VOSviewer (Visualization of Similarities)http://www.vosviewer.com

• Open source application;• Software to create maps;• Input: publication data;• Output: similarities among publication

elements:– Co-authors– Terms co-occurring– Co-cited articles– …

40

More information CWTS and methods• www.cwts.nl• www.journalindicators.com• www.vosviewer.com• noyons@cwts.leidenuniv.nl

41

THANK YOU

42

Basic model in which we operate (research evaluation)

• Research in context

Example (49 Research communties of a FI univ)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

MNCS (traditional)

MN

CS

(new

)

High Int-cov and large P Low Int_cov & small P

‘Positive’ effect

‘Negative’ effect

RC with a‘positive’effect

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

MULTIDISCIPLINARYSCIENCES (0.5 -> 0.6)

PHYSICS, PARTICLES &FIELDS (3.2 -> 4.6)

PHYSICS,MULTIDISCIPLINARY (7.1 ->

7.7)

PHYSICS, NUCLEAR (1.9 ->1.5)

GEOCHEMISTRY &GEOPHYSICS (0.8 -> 1.3)

GEOSCIENCES,MULTIDISCIPLINARY (0.8 ->

1.1)

METEOROLOGY &ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES

(0.8 -> 1.2)

ASTRONOMY &ASTROPHYSICS (0.8 -> 1.3)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

mncs high mncs Agv mncs low

• Most prominent field

• Impact increases

Rc with a‘negative’ effect

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

ALLERGY (3.4 -> 1.8)

MEDICINE, GENERAL &INTERNAL (3.8 -> 3.5)

PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL &OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (0.9

-> 0.9)

RHEUMATOLOGY (1.0 -> 1.1)

IMMUNOLOGY (2.0 -> 1.3)

PEDIATRICS (1.3 -> 0.8)

NUTRITION & DIETETICS (0.6-> 0.5)

ENDOCRINOLOGY &METABOLISM (1.0 -> 1.1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

mncs high mncs Agv mncs low

• Most prominent field

• Impact same

• Less prominent field

• Impact decreases

Wrap up Normalization

• Normalization based on journal classification has its flaws;

• We have developed recently an alternative;

• Test sets in recent projects show small (but relevant) differences;