An empirical review of the different variants of the probabilistic affinity index as applied to scientific collaboration

被引:10
作者
Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Zaida [1 ,2 ]
Bu, Yi [2 ]
Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas [3 ]
Sugimoto, Cassidy R. [4 ]
机构
[1] CSIC, Inst Polit & Bienes Publ IPP, Madrid 28037, Spain
[2] Peking Univ, Dept Informat Management, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China
[3] Delft Univ Technol TU, Delft Inst Appl Math, NL-2628 XE Delft, Netherlands
[4] Indiana Univ, Luddy Sch Informat Comp & Engn, Bloomington, IN 47408 USA
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Probabilistic affinity index (PAI); Preferred partners; Proximity; Scientific collaboration; Bibliometrics; Scientometrics; AUTHOR COCITATION ANALYSIS; CO-AUTHORSHIP; INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION; SCIENCE; COOPERATION; NETWORKS; PATTERNS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-020-03815-9
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Responsible indicators are crucial for research assessment and monitoring. Transparency and accuracy of indicators are required to make research assessment fair and ensure reproducibility. However, sometimes it is difficult to conduct or replicate studies based on indicators due to the lack of transparency in conceptualization and operationalization. In this paper, we review the different variants of the Probabilistic Affinity Index (PAI), considering both the conceptual and empirical underpinnings. We begin with a review of the historical development of the indicator and the different alternatives proposed. To demonstrate the utility of the indicator, we demonstrate the application of PAI to identifying preferred partners in scientific collaboration. A streamlined procedure is provided, to demonstrate the variations and appropriate calculations. We then compare the results of implementation for 5 specific countries involved in international scientific collaboration. Despite the different proposals on its calculation, we do not observe large differences between the PAI variants, particularly with respect to country size. As with any indicator, the selection of a particular variant is dependent on the research question. To facilitate appropriate use, we provide recommendations for the use of the indicator given specific contexts.
引用
收藏
页码:1775 / 1795
页数:21
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]   The fourth age of research [J].
Adams, Jonathan .
NATURE, 2013, 497 (7451) :557-560
[2]   Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient [J].
Ahlgren, P ;
Jarneving, B ;
Rousseau, R .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2003, 54 (06) :550-560
[3]  
Ahlgren P, 2004, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V55, P843, DOI 10.1002/asi.20030
[4]  
Beaver D. deB., 1978, Scientometrics, V1, P65, DOI 10.1007/BF02016840
[5]   STUDIES IN SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION .2. SCIENTIFIC CO-AUTHORSHIP, RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY AND VISIBILITY IN THE FRENCH SCIENTIFIC ELITE, 1799-1830 [J].
BEAVER, DD ;
ROSEN, R .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 1979, 1 (02) :133-149
[6]  
Bordons M, 2000, ASIST MON SER, P197
[7]   THE BIBLIOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF UK SCIENTIFIC PERFORMANCE - SOME COMMENTS ON MARTIN REPLY [J].
BRAUN, T ;
GLANZEL, W ;
SCHUBERT, A .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 1991, 20 (02) :359-362
[8]   Combining multiple scholarly relationships with author cocitation analysis: A preliminary exploration on improving knowledge domain mappings [J].
Bu, Yi ;
Ni, Shaokang ;
Huang, Win-Bin .
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2017, 11 (03) :810-822
[9]   MACA: a modified author co-citation analysis method combined with general descriptive metadata of citations [J].
Bu, Yi ;
Liu, Tian-yi ;
Huang, Win-bin .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2016, 108 (01) :143-166
[10]  
Caron E., 2014, P 19 INT C SCI TECHN, P79, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-981-32-9298-7_12