Bihui Jin

Evaluation of Research Performance and Scientometric Indicators in China

Chinese scientists and decision makers are, like their counterparts elsewhere in the world, highly interested in analysing the quality of their country’s academic and technological achievements. Twenty five years ago research activities Chinese scientists understood the world’s scientific research largely through journals consulted in libraries. in China were mainly conducted within the nation’s borders. Chinese scientists understood the world’s scientific research largely through journals consulted in libraries. They themselves published few papers in international journals. Meanwhile, the number of Chinese publications, as covered by SCI, has increased spectacularly: it rose from about 8,000 in the year 1990 to nearly 40,000 in the year 2002. What is the explanation for this extraordinary growth? The fundamentals of this accomplishment are to be found in the country’s major socio-economic development and the stimulating role of the government’s ST and one used for internal purposes, where the locally developed databases play an important role. Examples of comparisons and rankings based on local databases are given, and it is shown how these are different from rankings based on ISI’s databases. Chinese scientists and decision makers soon recognized that simple quantitative evaluations focussing on numbers stimulate the growth of publications, but have little effect on the quality of research. Hence new approaches and regulations for research evaluation are nowadays being introduced.

Chinese science citation database: Its construction and application

The important role of the Institute for Scientific InformationsScience Citation Index (SCI) as an international retrieval and evaluation tool is briefly discussed. The role ofChinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), the counterpart of SCI in China, in improving the application of citation retrieval method in China, is summarized. The construction process and status quo of CSCD are explained.

Development of the Chinese Scientometric Indicators (CSI)

We describe the Chinese Scientometric Indicators (CSI), an indicator database derived from the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). Its design is supported by the Natural Sciences Foundation of China (NSFC). In this indicator database data of a statistical nature are organized and categorized leading to ranked lists and providing bases for comparisons among Chinese institutions and regions.

Observations concerning the two- and three-year synchronous impact factor, based on the Chinese Science Citation Database

Generally speaking, the three‐year synchronous impact factor is larger than the two‐year one. This follows from theoretical models derived from observations based on ISIOs database. In this article we present an exception to this general rule, based on data from the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). In 1998 42% of this databaseOs source journals did not follow the expected trend. As a possible explanation we note that, contrary to intuition, in the CSCD the changes in the number of both publications and citations are largely independent. It is, however, not ruled out that the observed discrepancies are nothing but statistical fluctuations of the basic publication‐citation model.

An introduction to the barycentre method with an application to China's mean centre of publication

We explain the barycentre method and show how to apply it in a practical situation. A countrys mean centre of publication, or publication barycentre, is defined and its evolution is studied in the case of Chinas centre of publication. Data for this application are taken from the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). It is shown that Chinas publication barycentre slowly moves to the south and that it approaches the population barycentre. Tentative explanations for this southward movement, based on economic and educational considerations, are given. It is observed that inequality in publication between administrative units (regions) decreases slowly.

Key labs and open labs in the Chinese scientific research system: qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators

The introduction, construction and upgrading of a system of key labs and open labs are all results of a major S&T system reform in mainland China. A series of programmes extending over a period of 20 years has resulted in more than 160 key labs and nearly 400 open labs at present. Key labs as well as open labs are regularly evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative approach, however, is the more important part. A group of experts visits the lab so that the evaluation is based not only on written documents, but also on interviews and on a visual observation of the actual situation. In this article, special attention goes to the evaluation procedures for these labs used by the Chinese Government. Evaluation results from 1999 to 2003, based mainly on peer review, were collected. A comparison is made between qualitative indicators and quantitative indicators. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Key Labs and Open Labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Their role in the national and international scientific arena

SummaryChinese science has developed rapidly over the latest fifteen years. It is said that it is now in a quantitative expansion phase. A series of programmes extending over a period of twenty years has resulted in more than 160 Key Labs and nearly 400 Open Labs at present. The organization and evaluation of this system of labs is one of the strategic measures for scientific resource reorganization in China. The role played by these labs is analysed in this article using data from the Chinese Science Citation Database(CSCD) and the Science Citation Index(SCI). Nowadays almost one quarter of all internationally oriented Chinese publications originate from these labs. The same is true for citations received by Chinese scientists in the SCI. Comparisons between SCI-based and CSCD-based performance results show that the relative academic impact of Key Labs and Open Labs is more international than domestic. Key Labs have a higher total production and receive more citations than Open Labs. Yet their impact, measured as citations per publication, is very similar. We conclude that when it comes to impact on the international scene, these labs have not yet led to a big step forward for Chinese science as a whole. The fact that in the year 2004 a new evaluation procedure has been put in place means that the Chinese scientific authorities have recognized this fact and are dealing with it.