How reliable are unsupervised author disambiguation algorithms in the assessment of research organization performance?

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Quantitative Science Studies Pub Date : 2022-09-07 DOI:10.1162/qss_a_00236
G. Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
{"title":"How reliable are unsupervised author disambiguation algorithms in the assessment of research organization performance?","authors":"G. Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Assessing the performance of universities by output to input indicators requires knowledge of the individual researchers working within them. Although in Italy the Ministry of University and Research updates a database of university professors, in all those countries where such databases are not available, measuring research performance is a formidable task. One possibility is to trace the research personnel of institutions indirectly through their publications, using bibliographic repertories together with author names disambiguation algorithms. This work evaluates the goodness-of-fit of the Caron and van Eck, CvE unsupervised algorithm by comparing the research performance of Italian universities resulting from its application for the derivation of the universities’ research staff, with that resulting from the supervised algorithm of D’Angelo, Giuffrida, and Abramo (2011), which avails of input data. Results show that the CvE algorithm overestimates the size of the research staff of organizations by 56%. Nonetheless, the performance scores and ranks recorded in the two compared modes show a significant and high correlation. Still, nine out of 69 universities show rank deviations of two quartiles. Measuring the extent of distortions inherent in any evaluation exercises using unsupervised algorithms, can inform policymakers’ decisions on building national research staff databases, instead of settling for the unsupervised approaches.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"4 1","pages":"144-166"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Assessing the performance of universities by output to input indicators requires knowledge of the individual researchers working within them. Although in Italy the Ministry of University and Research updates a database of university professors, in all those countries where such databases are not available, measuring research performance is a formidable task. One possibility is to trace the research personnel of institutions indirectly through their publications, using bibliographic repertories together with author names disambiguation algorithms. This work evaluates the goodness-of-fit of the Caron and van Eck, CvE unsupervised algorithm by comparing the research performance of Italian universities resulting from its application for the derivation of the universities’ research staff, with that resulting from the supervised algorithm of D’Angelo, Giuffrida, and Abramo (2011), which avails of input data. Results show that the CvE algorithm overestimates the size of the research staff of organizations by 56%. Nonetheless, the performance scores and ranks recorded in the two compared modes show a significant and high correlation. Still, nine out of 69 universities show rank deviations of two quartiles. Measuring the extent of distortions inherent in any evaluation exercises using unsupervised algorithms, can inform policymakers’ decisions on building national research staff databases, instead of settling for the unsupervised approaches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在评估研究机构绩效时,无监督作者消歧算法的可靠性如何?
摘要通过产出与投入指标评估大学的绩效需要了解在大学内部工作的研究人员。尽管在意大利,大学和研究部更新了一个大学教授数据库,但在所有没有此类数据库的国家,衡量研究业绩是一项艰巨的任务。一种可能性是通过机构的出版物间接追踪研究人员,使用书目库和作者姓名消歧算法。这项工作通过比较意大利大学应用Caron和van Eck,CvE无监督算法推导大学研究人员的研究表现,与D’Angelo、Giuffrida和Abramo(2011)的监督算法(利用输入数据)的研究表现来评估其拟合优度。结果表明,CvE算法高估了组织研究人员的规模56%。尽管如此,在两种比较模式中记录的表现分数和排名显示出显著且高度的相关性。尽管如此,69所大学中有9所的排名偏差为两个四分位数。使用无监督算法测量任何评估工作中固有的扭曲程度,可以为决策者建立国家研究人员数据库的决定提供信息,而不是满足于无监督方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Technological Impact of Funded Research: A Case Study of Non-Patent References Socio-cultural factors and academic openness of world countries Scope and limitations of library metrics for the assessment of ebook usage: COUNTER R5 and link resolver The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account New methodologies for the digital age? How methods (re-)organize research using social media data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1