Match!
A.I.M. Jakaria Rahman
University of Antwerp
29Publications
2H-index
26Citations
Publications 30
Newest
#1Joshua Eykens (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 1
#2Raf Guns (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 10
Last.Tim C. E. Engels (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 13
view all 4 authors...
In this article we discuss the five yearly screenings for publications in questionable journals which have been carried out in the context of the performance-based research funding model in Flanders, Belgium. The Flemish funding model expanded from 2010 onwards, with a comprehensive bibliographic database for research output in the social sciences and humanities. Along with an overview of the procedures followed during the screenings for articles in questionable journals submitted for inclusion ...
Source
This doctoral thesis develops informetric methods for determining cognitive distance between publication portfolios of evaluators and evaluees in research evaluation. In a discipline specific research evaluation, when an expert panel evaluates research groups, it is an open question how one can determine the extent to which the panel members are in a position to evaluate the research groups. This thesis contributes to the literature by proposing six different informetric approaches to measure th...
Source
#1Joshua EykensH-Index: 1
#2Raf GunsH-Index: 1
Last.Tim C. E. EngelsH-Index: 13
view all 5 authors...
From 2013 – 2014 onwards, our group (ECOOM - UAntwerpen) has been monitoring Predatory Open Access publication patterns in Flemish (Belgium) SSH scholarship. In light of the Flemish Performance Based Research Funding System, these screening exercises are conducted to assist university review boards with the decision-making processes concerning what is and what is not to be considered a peer reviewed periodical. Each year, the results of these monitoring exercises than, are published in as a repo...
#1A.I.M. Jakaria Rahman (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 2
#2Raf Guns (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 10
Last.Tim C. E. Engels (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 13
view all 4 authors...
This article compares six informetric approaches to determine cognitive distances between the publications of panel members and those of research groups in discipline-specific research evaluation. We used data collected in the framework of six completed research evaluations from the period 2009-2014 at the University of Antwerp as a test case. We distinguish between two levels of aggregation – Web of Science subject categories and journals – and three methods: while the barycenter method (2-dime...
1 CitationsSource
#1RonaldRousseau (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)H-Index: 41
#2Raf Guns (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 10
Last.Tim C. E. Engels (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 13
view all 4 authors...
We study the problem of determining the cognitive distance between the publication portfolios of two units. In this article we provide a systematic overview of five different methods (a benchmark Euclidean distance approach, distance between barycenters in two and in three dimensions, distance between similarity-adapted publication vectors, and weighted cosine similarity) to determine cognitive distances using publication records. We present a theoretical comparison as well as a small empirical ...
2 CitationsSource
This technical report is prepared in the context of A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman’s PhD project on Determining cognitive distance between publication portfolios of evaluators and evaluees in research evaluation: An exploration of informetric methods. Similar technical reports on Biomedical Sciences, Chemistry Pharmaceutical Sciences, Physics and Veterinary Sciences department are also available at the institutional repository of the University of Antwerp (https://repository.uantwerpen.be).
#1A.I.M. Jakaria Rahman (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 2
#2Raf Guns (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 10
Last.Tim C. E. Engels (University of Antwerp)H-Index: 13
view all 4 authors...
In Rahman, Guns, Rousseau, and Engels (2015) we described several approaches to determine the cognitive distance between two units. One of these approaches was based on what we called barycenters in N dimensions. This note corrects this terminology and introduces the more adequate term ‘similarity-adapted publication vectors’.
1 CitationsSource
#2Raf GunsH-Index: 10
Last.Tim C. E. EngelsH-Index: 13
view all 4 authors...
When research groups are evaluated by an expert panel, it is an open question how one can determine the match between panel and research groups. In this paper, we outline two quantitative approaches that determine the cognitive distance between evaluators and evaluees, based on the journals they have published in. We use example data from four research evaluations carried out between 2009 and 2014 at the University of Antwerp. While the barycenter approach is based on a journal map, the similari...
Source
#1RonaldRousseauH-Index: 41
Last.Tim C. E. EngelsH-Index: 13
view all 4 authors...
In a previous article (Rahman, Guns, Rousseau, and Engels, 2015) we described several approaches to determine the cognitive distance between two units. One of these approaches was based on what we called barycenters in N dimensions. The present note corrects this terminology and introduces the more adequate term 'similarity-adapted publication vectors'. Furthermore, we correct an error in normalization and explain the importance of scale invariance in determining cognitive distance. We also cons...
#1RonaldRousseauH-Index: 41
Last.Tim C. E. EngelsH-Index: 13
view all 4 authors...
In a previous article (Rahman, Guns, Rousseau, and Engels, 2015) we described several approaches to determine the cognitive distance between two units. One of these approaches was based on what we called barycenters in N dimensions. The present note corrects this terminology and introduces the more adequate term similarity-adapted publication vectors. Furthermore, we correct an error in normalization and explain the importance of scale invariance in determining cognitive distance. Overall, we fi...
123