FSP - Scientometrics

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://localhost:4000/handle/123456789/60

Browse

Browsing FSP - Scientometrics by Subject "G-index"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ranking the Romanian departments of sociology : comparative results of different evaluation methodologies
    (Consiliul Agenţiei Române de Asigurare a Calităţii în Învăţământul Superior - ARACIS, 2013) Păunescu, Mihai; Hâncean, Gabriel
    In this article we will discuss the ranking of the sociology higher education study programs in Romania, on the basis of departmental g-successive index. The need and consequences of rankings in higher education is a much debated topic. Thus, we will look a little bit into the assumptions and the logic that underpins any evaluation and ranking exercise. Having done so, we will stumble upon a specific ranking methodology that is largely based on g-index. We will nonetheless show that the alternative official methodology, based on a considerably higher number of indicators, though measuring more comprehensively the concept of quality, largely produces the same results. We will eventually discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using synthetic indexes (like g index for instance) comparing with evaluation exercises that take on board more numerous indicators and dimensions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The "Black-Box" of institutional scores : analyzing the distribution of the values of the H and G Indexes in medicine schools in Romania
    (University of Oradea Publishing House (Editura Universitatii din Oradea), 2015) Proteasa, Viorel; Păunescu, Mihai; Miroiu, Adrian
    Measuring the university research performance has been an important focus of the higher education policies in past decade in Romania. In the present study we considered alternative methodologies for evaluating quality of research in the faculties of medicine. We set to compare the perspectives of past official evaluations with alternatives based on h and g indexes of the academics within these faculties and subsequent successive indexes and averages. We analyzed the distribution of the values of the individual h and g indexes and we rejected the universality claim hypothesis, according to which all university h- and g-index distributions follow a single functional form, proportional with the size of the universities. However, using the Characteristic Scores and Scales approach, we show that the shape of distributions is quite similar across universities revealing the skewness of scientific productivity. Given the high skewness of all distributions, we conclude that all three collective aggregation rules considered, averages, h- and g-successive indexes fail to provide an accurate measure of the differences between the individual academics within the six medical schools, and fail to provide scientific achievement incentives for the wide majority of the academic staff within the analysed faculties.