Evaluation of faculty members Research performance at Bushehr University of Medical Sciences in Google Scholar during 2009-2013

Subject Areas : Journal of Knowledge Studies

Khadijeh Shabankareh ¹ (MSc in Medical Library and Information Sciences, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences,)
Mitra Baghjannati ² (Msc in Medical library and Information Science, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran.)
Ali Hamidi ³ (Department of Library and Information Sciences, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences)

Received: 2017-05-02 Accepted : 2017-09-05 Published : 2017-12-22

Keywords: research performance, Scientific output, h-index, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Publish or Perish, G- index, Google Scholar,

Abstract :

Purpose: Considering the importance of scientific production in the ranking of universities and evaluation of faculty members as researchers who have most contribution in the scientific productions of universities, the present study examined the research performance of faculty members’ Bushehr University of Medical Sciences in Google Scholar in terms of quantity and quality. Methodology: This research is descriptive survey was conducted using citation analysis. The study sample is scientific outputs of all faculty members working at Bushehr University of Medical Sciences in 2014 (including 160), which is indexed in Google Scholar. Data were collected using publish or perish, a citation analysis software. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and descriptive indicators. Findings: The finding of this study showed that, 37/26% of the study population did not have any scientific Documents in Google Scholar and most of them (59/37%) had less than 20 Documents. Averaging 4/73 Documents for each of researcher was indexed in Google Scholar, and each person had received an average of 19/33 citation. The average number of citations per Document was also 1/83. Hirsch index average was equal to 1/45 and G-index was 1/2. Hirsch index and G-index were equal to zero for 48/12% of the study population. Conclusion: The present study indicates that the total number of documents, the total number of citations and Hirsh and G-index for the most researchers in this study are low. Low experience of the most researchers, language barriers and low international access to Persian documents are major reasons for this.

References:

امین پور، فرزانه؛ حیدری، محبوبه (1388). مقایسه برونداد پژوهشی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان. مدیریت اطلاعات سلامت، 6(1)، 35-42.

          رسول‌آبادی، مسعود؛ خضری، ادیب؛ حیدری، عطاالله (1391). وضعیت برونداد علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کردستان براساس شاخص‌های علم‌سنجی تا پایان سال 2011 میلادی. مجله علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کردستان، 17، 1-14.

          عبادی‌فر، اصغر؛ محمدی، محمدرضا؛ ولائی، ناصر (1384). عملکرد پژوهشی و نیازهای آموزش پژوهش اعضای هیئت علمی دندانپزشکی کشور- 1383. مجله دندانپزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی و خدمات بهداشتی، درمانی تهران، 18(4)، 95-101.

           کوشا، کیوان؛  عبدلی، مهشید(1389). استناد وبی: شاخصی نوین در سنجش اثرگذاری تحقیقات علوم پزشکی. مدیریت اطلاعات سلامت، 7(4)، 451-458.

          گرجی، حسن ابولقاسم؛ روستاآزاد، لیلا؛ حسن‌زاده، حافظ محمد؛ اصغری، لیلا؛ اطلسی، رشا؛ شکرانه، فرهاد؛ بذرافشان، اعظم(1389). رتبه‌بندی اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی و خدمات درمانی ایران بر اساس شاخص‌های هرش، و پارامتر تا پایان سال 2008. مدیریت اطلاعات سلامت، 13(42)، 17-24.

          میرحسینی، زهره؛ جلیلی‎باله، مرجان (1388). بررسی وضعیت بروندادهای پژوهشی اعضای هیأت علمی دانشکده‌های داروسازی تهران براساس شاخص. فصلنامه دانش شناسی (علوم کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی و فناوری اطلاعات)، 2(7)، 85-100.

           نوروزی‎چاکلی، عبدالرضا؛ آقایاری، حسین؛ حسن‎زاده، محمد (1390). ارزیابی پژوهشگران دانشگاه شهید بهشتی در پایگاه‌های استنادی وب آو ساینس، اسکوپوس و گوگل اسکالر براساس شاخص‌های اچ. جی. و پارامتر ام. پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، (1)، 135-152.

      Aksnes DW. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation. 12(3); 70-159                

 

      Baneyx, A. (2008). “Publish or Perish” as citation metrics used to analyze scientific output in the humanities: International case studies in economics, geography, social sciences, philosophy, and history. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 56(6), 363-371.

 

      Diem, A., Wolter, S. C. (2013). The use of bibliometrics to measure research performance in education sciences. Research in Higher Education, 54(1), 86-114.

 

      Guan, J., Gao, X. (2008). Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 357-379.

 

     Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46),16569-16572. Retrieved from :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pmc/articles/PMC1283832 (16/03/2015)/

 

      Jan, S. U.,  Anwar, M. A. (2015). Impact of Pakistani Authors in the google World: A Study of Library and Information Science Faculty.Library Philosophy and Practice, Retrieved from:http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/980

 

     Jeyasekar, J. J., Saravanan, P. (2015). A scientometric  analysis of global forensic science research. Library Philosophy & Practice,Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/ 1024

 

     Kelly, C. D.,  Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(4), 167-170.

 

     Meho, L. I.,  Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the american society for information science and technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.

 

       Zarifmahmoudi, L.,  Sadeghi, R. (2012). Comparison of ISI web of knowledge, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar h-indices of Iranian nuclear medicine scientists. Iranian Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 20(1), 1-4.