Analysis of global inequality in research outcome using the Gini coefficient

IF 1.8 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Performance Measurement and Metrics Pub Date : 2020-11-11 DOI:10.1108/pmm-05-2020-0027
Jane Cho
{"title":"Analysis of global inequality in research outcome using the Gini coefficient","authors":"Jane Cho","doi":"10.1108/pmm-05-2020-0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study attempts to prove the extent of the gaps in the academic ecosystem by using the Gini coefficient.Design/methodology/approachThis study measures the gap between research document volume and citation by country and academic field using the latest ten years of research data of the Web of Science.FindingsAs a result, there is a large volume of documents in the USA and China, and the gap between global countries is g = 0.88 with high inequality. The fields of arts and humanities and social sciences are led by British and American cultures, and the gap between countries (g = 0.91, 0.89) is larger than in other fields. In the meantime, there is also inequality (g = 0.40) about the volumes of research documents between six academic fields, and the gap between the average numbers of citations per publication is the highest in social science (g = 0.80) and the lowest in life science (g = 0.71).Originality/valueThis study proves the extent of the gaps in the academic ecosystem by using the Gini coefficient with large amount research data.","PeriodicalId":44583,"journal":{"name":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pmm-05-2020-0027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThis study attempts to prove the extent of the gaps in the academic ecosystem by using the Gini coefficient.Design/methodology/approachThis study measures the gap between research document volume and citation by country and academic field using the latest ten years of research data of the Web of Science.FindingsAs a result, there is a large volume of documents in the USA and China, and the gap between global countries is g = 0.88 with high inequality. The fields of arts and humanities and social sciences are led by British and American cultures, and the gap between countries (g = 0.91, 0.89) is larger than in other fields. In the meantime, there is also inequality (g = 0.40) about the volumes of research documents between six academic fields, and the gap between the average numbers of citations per publication is the highest in social science (g = 0.80) and the lowest in life science (g = 0.71).Originality/valueThis study proves the extent of the gaps in the academic ecosystem by using the Gini coefficient with large amount research data.
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
用基尼系数分析研究成果的全球不平等
目的本研究试图通过基尼系数来证明学术生态系统中的差距程度。设计/方法论/方法本研究利用科学网最近十年的研究数据,按国家和学术领域衡量了研究文献量和引用量之间的差距。结果,美国和中国的文献量很大,全球国家之间的差距为g=0.88,不平等程度很高。艺术和人文社会科学领域以英美文化为主导,国家之间的差距(g=0.91,0.89)大于其他领域。同时,六个学术领域之间的研究文献量也存在不平等(g=0.40),每份出版物的平均引用次数之间的差距在社会科学中最高(g=0.80),在生命科学中最低(g=0.71)。原创性/价值本研究利用基尼系数和大量研究数据证明了学术生态系统中的差距程度。
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
Performance Measurement and Metrics
Performance Measurement and Metrics INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: ■Quantitative and qualitative analysis ■Benchmarking ■The measurement and role of information in enhancing organizational effectiveness ■Quality techniques and quality improvement ■Training and education ■Methods for performance measurement and metrics ■Standard assessment tools ■Using emerging technologies ■Setting standards or service quality
期刊最新文献
First-gen and the library: a survey of student perceptions of academic library services Predicting student success with and without library instruction using supervised machine learning methods What space are you looking for? An evaluation of organizational climate and its relationship with job burnout in hospital and college libraries Revise, redUX, re-cycle: iterative website usability studies in an assessment cycle
×
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