三步工作流程:为文献计量目的分配学术医院附属机构的实用方法

Andrea Reyes Elizondo, C. Calero-Medina, M. Visser
{"title":"三步工作流程:为文献计量目的分配学术医院附属机构的实用方法","authors":"Andrea Reyes Elizondo, C. Calero-Medina, M. Visser","doi":"10.2478/jdis-2022-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose A key question when ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities. This paper presents a method for classifying the varying degrees of interdependency between academic hospitals and universities in the context of the Leiden Ranking. Design/methodology/approach Hospital nomenclatures vary worldwide to denote some form of collaboration with a university, however they do not correspond to universally standard definitions. Thus, rather than seeking a normative definition of academic hospitals, we propose a three-step workflow that aligns the university-hospital relationship with one of three general models: full integration of the hospital and the medical faculty into a single organization; health science centres in which hospitals and medical faculty remain separate entities albeit within the same governance structure; and structures in which universities and hospitals are separate entities which collaborate with one another. This classification system provides a standard through which publications which mention affiliations with academic hospitals can be better allocated. Findings In the paper we illustrate how the three-step workflow effectively translates the three above-mentioned models into two types of instrumental relationships for the assignation of publications: “associate” and “component”. When a hospital and a medical faculty are fully integrated or when a hospital is part of a health science centre, the relationship is classified as component. When a hospital follows the model of collaboration and support, the relationship is classified as associate. The compilation of data following these standards allows for a more uniform comparison between worldwide educational and research systems. Research limitations The workflow is resource intensive, depends heavily on the information provided by universities and hospitals, and is more challenging for languages that use non-Latin characters. Further, the application of the workflow demands a careful evaluation of different types of input which can result in ambiguity and makes it difficult to automatize. Practical implications Determining the type of affiliation an academic hospital has with a university can have a substantial impact on the publication counts for universities. This workflow can also aid in analysing collaborations among the two types of organizations. Originality/value The three-step workflow is a unique way to establish the type of relationship an academic hospital has with a university accounting for national and regional differences on nomenclature.","PeriodicalId":92237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","volume":"7 1","pages":"20 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Three-Step Workflow: A Pragmatic Approach to Allocating Academic Hospitals’ Affiliations for Bibliometric Purposes\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Reyes Elizondo, C. Calero-Medina, M. Visser\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/jdis-2022-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Purpose A key question when ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities. This paper presents a method for classifying the varying degrees of interdependency between academic hospitals and universities in the context of the Leiden Ranking. Design/methodology/approach Hospital nomenclatures vary worldwide to denote some form of collaboration with a university, however they do not correspond to universally standard definitions. Thus, rather than seeking a normative definition of academic hospitals, we propose a three-step workflow that aligns the university-hospital relationship with one of three general models: full integration of the hospital and the medical faculty into a single organization; health science centres in which hospitals and medical faculty remain separate entities albeit within the same governance structure; and structures in which universities and hospitals are separate entities which collaborate with one another. This classification system provides a standard through which publications which mention affiliations with academic hospitals can be better allocated. Findings In the paper we illustrate how the three-step workflow effectively translates the three above-mentioned models into two types of instrumental relationships for the assignation of publications: “associate” and “component”. When a hospital and a medical faculty are fully integrated or when a hospital is part of a health science centre, the relationship is classified as component. When a hospital follows the model of collaboration and support, the relationship is classified as associate. The compilation of data following these standards allows for a more uniform comparison between worldwide educational and research systems. Research limitations The workflow is resource intensive, depends heavily on the information provided by universities and hospitals, and is more challenging for languages that use non-Latin characters. Further, the application of the workflow demands a careful evaluation of different types of input which can result in ambiguity and makes it difficult to automatize. Practical implications Determining the type of affiliation an academic hospital has with a university can have a substantial impact on the publication counts for universities. This workflow can also aid in analysing collaborations among the two types of organizations. Originality/value The three-step workflow is a unique way to establish the type of relationship an academic hospital has with a university accounting for national and regional differences on nomenclature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"20 - 36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2022-0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2022-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要目的在大学排名中,是否将附属医院的论文产出分配给大学是一个关键问题。本文提出了一种在莱顿排名的背景下对学术医院和大学之间不同程度的相互依赖进行分类的方法。设计/方法/方法医院的命名在世界范围内有所不同,以表示与大学的某种形式的合作,但它们并不符合普遍的标准定义。因此,与其寻求学术医院的规范定义,我们提出了一个三步工作流程,将大学与医院的关系与三种一般模式之一保持一致:将医院和医学院完全整合到一个组织中;在保健科学中心,医院和医学院虽然在同一治理结构内,但仍然是独立的实体;在这种结构中,大学和医院是相互独立的实体,彼此合作。这种分类系统提供了一个标准,通过该标准,提及与学术医院的隶属关系的出版物可以更好地分配。在本文中,我们说明了三步工作流程如何有效地将上述三种模型转化为两种类型的出版物分配工具关系:“关联”和“组成部分”。当医院和医学院完全整合,或者当医院是卫生科学中心的一部分时,这种关系被归类为组成部分。当医院遵循合作和支持的模式时,这种关系被归类为合作关系。按照这些标准汇编数据,可以对世界各地的教育和研究系统进行更统一的比较。该工作流程是资源密集型的,严重依赖于大学和医院提供的信息,并且对于使用非拉丁字符的语言更具挑战性。此外,工作流的应用需要对不同类型的输入进行仔细的评估,这可能导致歧义,并使其难以自动化。确定学术医院与大学的隶属关系类型可以对大学的出版物数量产生重大影响。此工作流还可以帮助分析两种类型的组织之间的协作。原创性/价值三步工作流程是一种独特的方式来建立一个学术医院与大学之间的关系类型,考虑到国家和地区在命名上的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Three-Step Workflow: A Pragmatic Approach to Allocating Academic Hospitals’ Affiliations for Bibliometric Purposes
Abstract Purpose A key question when ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities. This paper presents a method for classifying the varying degrees of interdependency between academic hospitals and universities in the context of the Leiden Ranking. Design/methodology/approach Hospital nomenclatures vary worldwide to denote some form of collaboration with a university, however they do not correspond to universally standard definitions. Thus, rather than seeking a normative definition of academic hospitals, we propose a three-step workflow that aligns the university-hospital relationship with one of three general models: full integration of the hospital and the medical faculty into a single organization; health science centres in which hospitals and medical faculty remain separate entities albeit within the same governance structure; and structures in which universities and hospitals are separate entities which collaborate with one another. This classification system provides a standard through which publications which mention affiliations with academic hospitals can be better allocated. Findings In the paper we illustrate how the three-step workflow effectively translates the three above-mentioned models into two types of instrumental relationships for the assignation of publications: “associate” and “component”. When a hospital and a medical faculty are fully integrated or when a hospital is part of a health science centre, the relationship is classified as component. When a hospital follows the model of collaboration and support, the relationship is classified as associate. The compilation of data following these standards allows for a more uniform comparison between worldwide educational and research systems. Research limitations The workflow is resource intensive, depends heavily on the information provided by universities and hospitals, and is more challenging for languages that use non-Latin characters. Further, the application of the workflow demands a careful evaluation of different types of input which can result in ambiguity and makes it difficult to automatize. Practical implications Determining the type of affiliation an academic hospital has with a university can have a substantial impact on the publication counts for universities. This workflow can also aid in analysing collaborations among the two types of organizations. Originality/value The three-step workflow is a unique way to establish the type of relationship an academic hospital has with a university accounting for national and regional differences on nomenclature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial board publication strategy and acceptance rates in Turkish national journals Multimodal sentiment analysis for social media contents during public emergencies Perspectives from a publishing ethics and research integrity team for required improvements Build neural network models to identify and correct news headlines exaggerating obesity-related scientific findings An author credit allocation method with improved distinguishability and robustness
×
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