Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Delineating Organizations at CWTS—A Story of Many Pathways

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment

Abstract

In this chapter we discuss the history and development of an extensive and sophisticated system to identify, register and harmonize organization names in the academic realm. The system integrates the time-consuming and complex work of data-cleaning of author affiliations of publications. An extensive history of the work started in the eighties of last century and is described. We elaborate on the development of application of academic affiliations in research evaluation and university rankings. We also discuss the current work on this topic, the desktop research involved as well as the way forward for this type of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    RISIS is a Horizon2020 project, https://www.risis2.eu/.

  2. 2.

    KNOWMAK is a Horizon 2020 project, https://www.knowmak.eu/.

  3. 3.

    For an overview of providers of organizational identifiers see Bilder et al. (2016).

  4. 4.

    For example through OrgReg as part of the RISIS project: https://www.risis2.eu/registers-orgreg/.

  5. 5.

    These 6,099,143 publications were identified as part of an ongoing research project at CWTS on matching publications from different bibliographic data sourcesis. First results were published in Visser, Van Eck, and Waltman (2019).

  6. 6.

    Microsoft Academic. (2019, April 4). Microsoft Academic Graph (Version 2019-03-22). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2628216.

References

  • Arvanitis, R., & Chatelin, Y. (1988). National strategies in tropical soil science. Social Studies of Science, 18, 113–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration—Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 1, 65–84. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilder, G., Brown, J., & Demeranville, T. (2016). Organisation identifiers: current provider survey at https://orcid.org/sites/default/files/ckfinder/userfiles/files/20161031%20OrgIDProviderSurvey.pdf.

  • Braam, R. R. (1991). Mapping of Science: Foci of Interest in Scientific Literature Thesis University of Leiden, DSWO Press, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, R. E. (1986). Burgers op het kussen. Volkssoevereiniteit en bestuurssamenstelling in de stad Utrecht 1795–1813 (diss. Utrecht, 1986); De Walburg Pers, Zutphen.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, R. E., & Moed, H. F. (1990). The unification of addresses in scientific publications. In L. Eggheen & R. Rousseau (Ed.), Informetrics 89/90 (pp. 65–78). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, R. E., Braam, R. R., & Moed, H. F. (1991). Bibliometric lines in the sand. Nature, 349, 559–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, R. E., & Moed, H. F. (1993). The use of cognitive address words in the delimitation of scientific subfields. Scientometrics, 26, 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, R. E., Kint, A., Luwel, M., & Moed, H. F. (1993). A study of research evaluation and planning: The University of Ghent. Research Evaluation, 3, 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calero-Medina, C., Lopez-Illescas, C., Visser, M. S., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Important factors in the interpretation of bibliometric rankings of world universities. Research Evaluation, 17, 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantu-Ortiz, F. J. (2017). Research analytics: Boosting university productivity and competitiveness through scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315155890.

  • Donner, P., Rimmert, C., & van Eck, N. J. (2020). Comparing institutional-level bibliometric research performance indicator values based on different affiliation disambiguation systems. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science. Science, 122, 3159, 108–111. Retrieved from JSTOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1992). Contract research services at ISI—Citation analysis for government, industry, and academic clients. Current Contents, 23, 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C.-K., Neylon, C., Brookes-Kenworthy, C., Hosking, R., Montgomery, L., Wilson, K., & Ozaygen, A. (2019). Comparison of bibliographic data sources: Implications for the robustness of university rankings bioRxiv 750075, https://doi.org/10.1101/750075.

  • Lewison, G., & Cunningham P. (1989). The use of bibliometrics in the evaluation of community biotechnology programmes. In Science and Technology Indicators. Their Use in Science Policy and their Role in Science Studies. Leiden (Netherlands): DSWO Press. ISBN 9066950366 9789066950368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewison, G. (1999). Yogoslav politics, “ethnic cleansing” and co-authorship in science. Scientometrics, 44(2), 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., & Vriens, M. (1989). Possible inaccuracies occurring in citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 15(2), 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., de Bruin, R. E., & van Leeuwen, Th. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33, 381–422. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Luwel, M., de Bruin, R. E., Houben, J. A., Van Den Berghe, H., & Spruyt, E. (1997). ‘Trends in research output at Flemish universities during the 80’s and early 90’s: A retrospective bibliometric study’. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informatrics, June 16–19, 1997, The School of Library, Archive and Information Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (pp. 277–287).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, M. J. (1988). The coverage of science in the Third World: The “Philadelphia program”. In L. Egghe & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics 87/88 (pp. 147–155). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagtegaal, L. W., & de Bruin, R. E. (1994). The French connection and other neo-colonial patterns in the global network of science. Research Evaluation, 4, 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Praal, F. E. W., Kosten, M. J. F., Calero-Medina, C., & Visser, M. S. (2013). ‘Ranking Universities: The challenge of Affiliated Institutes’, In S. Hinze, A. Lottmann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators: Translational Twists and Turns: Science as a Socio-Economic Endeavour, Berlin, IFQ (pp. 284–289).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes-Elizondo, A., Calero-Medina, C., & Visser, M. S. (2019). A pragmatic approach to allocating academic hospitals’ affiliations for bibliometric purposes. Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott, T. (1988). International influence in science: Beyond center and periphery. Social Science Research, 17, 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., Zsindely, S., & Braun, T. (1985). Scientometric indicators for evaluating medical research output of mid-size countries. Scientometrics, 7, 3, 155–163. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berghe, H., Houben, J. A., de Bruin, R. E., Moed, H. F., Kint, A., Luwel, M., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (1998). Bibliometric indicators of university research performance in Flanders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS), 49, 59–67. Wiley publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Honk, J., Calero-Medina, C., & Costas, R. (2016). Funding acknowledgements in the web of science: Inconsistencies in data collection and standardization of funding organizations. In 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators-STI 2016. Book of Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, M., Van Eck N. J., & Waltman, L. (2019). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Web of science, scopus, dimensions, and crossref. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 2358–2369).

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., Van Eck, N. J., … Wouters, P. (2012). The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 12, 2419–2432. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22708.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Part of the work presented here was supported by RISIS2—Research Infrastructure for Research and Innovation Policy Studies 2, an Horizon2020 EU Project, grant agreement no: 824091 and KNOWMAK—Knowledge in the making in the European society funded by European Union’s Horizon 2020 under grant agreement 726992. Another project that partially funded this work is the U-Multirank (funded with support from the Bertelsmann Stiftung, the European Commission’s Erasmus+ Programme and Santander Group).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CWTS, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Clara Calero-Medina, Ed Noyons & Martijn Visser

  2. Department of History and Art History, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Renger De Bruin

Authors
  1. Clara Calero-Medina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ed Noyons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martijn Visser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Renger De Bruin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ed Noyons .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Automatica e Gestionale (DIAG), Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

    Cinzia Daraio

  2. Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM) and Dept MSI, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Wolfgang Glänzel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Calero-Medina, C., Noyons, E., Visser, M., De Bruin, R. (2020). Delineating Organizations at CWTS—A Story of Many Pathways. In: Daraio, C., Glänzel, W. (eds) Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47664-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47665-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation