Cross-field evaluation of publications of research institutes using their contributions to the fields’ MVPs determined by h-index

We propose a cross-field evaluation method for the publications of research institutes. With this approach, we first determine a set of the most visible publications (MVPs) for each field from the publications of all assessed institutes according to the field's h-index. Then, we measure an institute's production in each field by its percentage share (i.e., contribution) to the field's MVPs. Finally, we obtain an institute's cross-field production measure as the average of its contributions to all fields. The proposed approach is proven empirically to be reasonable, intuitive to understand, and uniformly applicable to various sets of institutes and fields of different publication and citation patterns. The field and cross-field production measures obtained by the proposed approach not only allow linear ranking of institutes, but also reveal the degree of their production difference.     

Exploring the influence of coauthorship with top scientists on researchers’ affiliation,research topic,productivity, and impact

Research studies have found that coauthorship with top scientists positively correlates with researchers’ career advancement. However, the influence of different proximities and types of coauthorship with top scientists on their performance has rarely been discussed. We identified the winners of four awards as top authors. We also evaluated the effect on the researchers’ affiliation change, research topic, productivity, and impact before and after three top-ordinary scientist coauthorship types (strong, moderate, and weak), examining the effect after top-top and ordinary-ordinary scientist coauthorships. Additionally, a coauthorship closeness indicator was proposed, considering the team size and author role to measure the collaboration relationship between coauthors. The results reveal that the top scientist in strong coauthorship obtained the highest affiliation change rate. For the top-ordinary coauthorship, the affiliation change rate for top scientists is higher than for ordinary scientists. For other aspects (the coauthor number, research topic, productivity, and impact), the rate after strong and moderate coauthorships increases compared to weak top-ordinary coauthorship type for top and ordinary scientists. Therefore, top scientists obtain a partner with skills, and ordinary scientists obtain more guidance. Strong and moderate coauthorships are win-win relationships for top-ordinary coauthorship types.