Research On The Influence Of Counting Method On Scientific Research Ranking And Funding Output Based On Web Of Science Large-scale Literature Data

Under the trend of economic globalization,more and more countries encourage their own scientific research institutions and researchers to participate in international collaboration,which relying on bilateral and variable joint funding mechanisms.Various factors have driven the continuous expansion of the scope and depth of global scientific research collaboration,which has led to an explosive growth in the number of co-authored papers.When investigating the scientific productivity,scientific impact or scientific development of a country,we need to first allocate papers to different countries.This problem is partially related to how we “count” papers,giving rise to a rich body of studies on the counting method.Due to the limitations of evaluation itself,no system can satisfactly evaluate objects,and scientific research evaluation is certainly no exception.In the current academic environment and scientific research evaluation system,with the number of papers and citations as the main quantitative indicators,the scientific research ranking results obtained have gradually become a strong basis for decision making,such as various evaluations and assessments in the academic field,the employment and promotion of scientific research personnel,and government departments formulating technology and education development strategies A strong decision-making basis for education development strategies.More importantly,country allocation is related to applications more general than just counting.At the same time,the paper is one of the important achievements of the scientific research fund project.When the final report of the scientific research fund is reported,each scientific research funding can claim to have funded the paper.However,a paper may be funded by multiple different fundings,which means that the counting method also has an important influence on the output of the funding.In this study,we aim to overcome these limitations mentioned above by a bibliometric database.Through appropriate data preprocessing and reasonable measurement indicators,we analyzed the influence of different counting methods on scientific research rankings and funding output and the relationship between different counting methods from the perspectives of scientific research output and scientific research influence.It aims to solve the problem of country distribution and the selection of counting method of the paper.Make it more accurate to reflect the true level of the evaluation object and provide relevant theoretical basis and methodological support for more scientific research evaluation work.The study found:(1)In the country level scientific research evaluation,the choice of counting method does not have a great influence on the national scientific research output and the ranking of scientific research influence.However,in the research evaluation at the institution level,the counting method has a greater impact on the institutions ranked in the middle,while the impact on the institutions ranked higher or lower is relatively small.Whether it is at the country or institution level,the impact of the whole counting method on scientific research impact(number of citations)is much greater than the impact on scientific research output(number of papers).By using the counting inflation coefficient to further measure the effect of different counting methods on scientific research performance,it is found that the whole counting method has a magnified scientific research performance effect.What's more,the whole counting method has a certain bias,which is often beneficial to countries with a high degree of international scientific research collaboration,and is beneficial to those internationally.Countries with a low degree of scientific research collaboration are disadvantaged.Although the whole counting method is currently popular in academia,it is not the best counting method.In order to ensure the rationality and accuracy of the evaluation results,it is recommended to use straight counting and fraction counting.(2)We find that a paper's the first address and the corresponding address are almost the same at the country level,with over 98% of the match on average.However,the match at the institution level is much lower,which varies significantly with time and country.Hence,for studies relying on country information,using the first and corresponding addresses are almost the same.But we may need to take more cautions to select address when the institution is the focus of the investigation.In the meanwhile,we find some evidence that the recorded corresponding information in the Wo S database has undergone some changes since 2013,which sheds light on future studies on the comparison of different databases or the address accuracy of Wo S.(3)Regarding the research on funding,whether it is the National Natural Science Foundation of China(NSFC)or the National Science Foundation(NSF),the number of papers funded is increasing year by year,but the growth rate of the number of papers funded by NSFC is significantly higher than that NSF.China's increase in the number of papers has long been recognized by many scientific research evaluation institutions.The inflation coefficients of NSF and NSFC have been rising year by year,that is,the number of funding for a paper by different funds is also increasing.In other words,the phenomenon of "one paper with multiple notes" is also increasing year by year.The "one article with multiple notes" situation shows obvious differences in subject areas.Whether it is in China or the United States,natural sciences are easier to apply for scientific research funds,while it is more difficult to apply for scientific research funds in fields such as social sciences and business management.