The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How do you define and measure research productivity?
Open accessAbstract
Productivity is the quintessential indicator of efficiency in any production system. It seems it has become a norm in bibliometrics to define research productivity as the number of publications per researcher, distinguishing it from impact. In this work we operationalize the economic concept of productivity for the specific context of research activity and show the limits of the commonly accepted definition. We propose then a measurable form of research productivity through the indicator “Fractional Scientific Strength (FSS)”, in keeping with the microeconomic theory of production. We present the methodology for measure of FSS at various levels of analysis: individual, field, discipline, department, institution, region and nation. Finally, we compare the ranking lists of Italian universities by the two definitions of research productivity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring the efficiency of decision making units
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8 · Cited by 29,767
Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078 · Cited by 16,729
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output
Hirsch, J. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102 · Cited by 11,669
The frequency distribution of scientific productivity
Lotka, A. J. (1926) · Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences · Cited by 2,246
Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences.
(1918) · The Journal of Geology · doi:10.1086/622567 · Cited by 1,707
Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation
(2005) · Information Science and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3714-7 · Cited by 1,309
The scientific impact of nations
King, D. A. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/430311a · Cited by 1,245
The Academic Ranking of World Universities
Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005) · Higher Education in Europe · doi:10.1080/03797720500260116 · Cited by 1,070
Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?
Garfield, E. (1979) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02019306 · Cited by 907
Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus
Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21062 · Cited by 833
Cited by
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
Bibliometric analysis: The main steps
Passas, I. (2024) · Encyclopedia · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia4020065 · Cited by 842
Revisiting the Scientometric Conceptualization of Impact and Its Measurement
Abramo, G. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.05.001 · Cited by 80
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A.
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2014-03-19
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1129-1144
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2034993557
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 16.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How do you define and measure research productivity? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8
- The paper
- Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
