Tracking the evolution of waste recycling research using overlay maps of science

Article, Preprint English OPEN
Garechana Anacabe, Gaizka ; Río Belver, Rosa María ; Cilleruelo Carrasco, Ernesto Jesús ; Gavilanes Trapote, Javier (2012)
  • Publisher: Elsevier
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.017, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015, handle: 10261/52793
  • Subject: Innovation | research forecasting | Physics - Physics and Society | science map | H | Computer Science - Digital Libraries | Interdisciplinary | Interdisciplinary, Evaluation, Ranking, Innovation, Bibliometrics, REF | Evaluation | recycling trends | tech mining | Bibliometrics | Research assessment | Ranking
    • jel: jel:A12 | jel:O30

This study provides quantitative evidence on how the use of journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research in research evaluations. Using publication and citation data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of a number of Innovation Studies units with that of leading Business & Management schools in the UK. On the basis of various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) Innovation Studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary in their research than Business & Management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools' rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower-ranked journals; (iii) this results in a more favourable assessment of the performance of Business & Management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. This citation-based analysis challenges the journal ranking-based assessment. In short, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly 'excellence-based' journal rankings exhibit a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how the bias is likely to affect negatively the evaluation and associated financial resourcing of interdisciplinary research organisations, and may result in researchers becoming more compliant with disciplinary authority over time.
  • References (15)
    15 references, page 1 of 2

    ABRC, 1990. Peer Review: a Report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC) from the Working Group on Peer Review (Boden Report). ABRC, London.

    ABS 2010. Academic Journal Quality Guide. Version 4. Association of Business Schools (downloaded on 1 December 2010 from http://www.the-abs.org.uk/?id=257).

    Adams, J, Jackson, L., Marshall, S., 2007. Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Evidence, Leeds.

    Adams, J., Gurney, K., Jackson, L., 2008. Calibrating the zoom - a test of Zitt's hypothesis. Scientometrics 75(1), 81-95.

    Alvesson, M., Sandberg J., 2011. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Paper presented in the 2011 EGOS (European Group for Organizational Studies) Conference, Stockholm, July 2011.

    Balakrishnan, A., Pena, V., Lal, B., 2011. Measuring the Interdisciplinarity of a Federal R&D Program Using Bibliometrics and Science Overlay Maps. Paper presented in the 2011 Atlanta Science and Innovation Policy Conference. Atlanta, September 2011 (downloaded on 28 September 2011from http://conferences.library.gatech.edu/acsip/index.php/acsip/ATLC11/paper/view/596/481).

    Barry, A., Born, G., Weszkalnys, G., 2008. Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37, 1, 20- 49.

    Boddington, A., Coe, T., 1999. Interdisciplinary Research and the Research Assessment Exercise. Evaluation Associates Ltd., Report for the UK Higher Education Funding Bodies (downloaded on 25 April 2011 from 195.194.167.103/Pubs/1_99/1_99.doc).

    Boix Mansilla, V., 2006. Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration. Research Evaluation 15(1), 17-29.

    Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Gomez, I., (2004). Analysis of cross-disciplinary research through bibliometric tools, in: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (Eds), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 437-456.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    55
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Sussex Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 55