A framework towards bias-free contextual productivity assessment
- 69 Downloads
Productivity assessment of various actors is one of the major concerns of Scientometrics and is vital for many applications that include policymaking. Popular productivity indices are not suitable for the determination of productivity of actors within a research context. A framework for the generation of metrics for contextual productivity assessment based on network approach has been recently proposed. However, that framework used full counting or full credit allocation, which incurs inflationary and equalizing bias. Schemes such as fractional and harmonic counting could reduce inflationary bias and harmonic counting has a repute of minimizing equalizing bias. As the existing framework for contextual productivity assessment is prone to inflationary and equalizing bias, empowering it with the provision to determine the right credit allocation scheme might take us closer to the achievement of a bias-free framework. In this work, a method to quantify the biases and to decide the right credit allocation scheme is introduced and using this we revamp the existing framework. As a case study, the productivity of inventors in the field ‘Wireless Power Transmission’ is determined. Implications from the real-world case study signify the effectiveness of the framework.
KeywordsBias-free productivity assessment Contextual productivity assessment Fractional counting Harmonic counting Patent-inventor network Affiliation networks
This work used the facility provided by ‘Scientometric lab’ (Order No. Pl.A1/Annual plan 16-17/Imp.plan/16 dated. 29/11/2016), Department of Futures Studies, University of Kerala.
- Garfield, E. (1957). Breaking the subject index barrier—A citation index for chemical patents. Journal of the Patent Office Society, 39, 583.Google Scholar
- Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2010). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Hodge, S. E., Greenberg, D. A., & Challice, C. (1981). Publication credit. Science, 213, 950.Google Scholar
- Hoel, E. G., Heng, W.-L., & Honeycutt, D. (2005). High performance multimodal networks. In International symposium on spatial and temporal databases (pp. 308–327). Springer.Google Scholar
- Kosmulski, M. (2006). A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3), 4–6.Google Scholar
- Lathabai, H. H., Prabhakaran, T., & Changat, M. (2014). Affiliations network analysis in scientific citations: A case study of information technology for engineering. In 2014 International conference on data science & engineering (ICDSE) (pp. 151–156). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.Google Scholar
- Newman, M. E. J. (2008). Mathematics of Networks. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (pp. 4059–4064). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Tesla, N. (1908). The future of the wireless art. In W. W. Massie & C. R. Underhill (Eds.), Wireless Telegraphy & Telephony (pp. 67–71). New York: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
- Tesla, N. (1914). Apparatus for transmitting electrical energy. US Patent 1,119,732.Google Scholar
- Tesla, N. (1927). World system of wireless transmission of energy. Telegraph and Telephone Age, 20, 457–460.Google Scholar
- USPTO-OPET (published on May 31, 2019). Retrieved July 19, 2019, from https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions/timeline/correction-inventorship-petitions.