A simple, generalizable method for measuring individual research productivity and its use in the long-term analysis of departmental performance, including between-country comparisons.

1.2 MB·English

by  Wootton, Richard

WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
RESEARCH Open Access
A simple, generalizable method for measuring
individual research productivity and its use in the
long-term analysis of departmental performance,
including between-country comparisons
Richard Wootton1,2
Abstract
Background: Asimple,generalizable method for measuring research outputwould be useful in attempts to build
research capacity,and inother contexts.
Methods: A simpleindicator ofindividual research output was developed,based on grant income, publications
and numbersof PhD students supervised.The feasibility and utility of the indicator was examined by using it to
calculate research output from two similarly-sized research groups indifferent countries. The same indicator can be
used to assess the balance in theresearch “portfolio”of an individual researcher.
Results: Research output scores of 41 staff in Research Department A had a wide range, from zero to 8; the
distribution of these scores was highly skewed. Only about 20% ofthe researchers had well-balanced research
outputs, with approximatelyequalcontributionsfrom grants, papers and supervision.Over a five-year period,
Department A'stotal research output rose, while thenumberof research staff decreased slightly, in other words
research productivity (outputper head) rose. Totalresearch output from Research Department B, of approximately
thesame size as A,was similar, but slightly higher than Department A.
Conclusions: The proposedindicatoris feasible. The outputscore is dimensionlessand can be used for
comparisons within and between countries. Modelingcan be used to explore the effect on research output of
changing the size and composition ofa research department.A sensitivity analysis shows that small increases in
individual productivity result inrelatively greater increases in overall departmental research output. The indicator
appears to be potentially useful for capacitybuilding, once theinitial stepof research priority setting has been
completed.
Keywords: Research productivity, Research output, Capacitybuilding
Background “research” itself, either research impact or research out-
Appropriate research capacity is an essential component put.Unfortunately,althoughmeasuringtheimpactofre-
of any public health system. Consequently, building search is possible, it is not straightforward [1,2];
research capacity is a common aim at an institutional measuring research output is in many ways an easier
level, as well as at national and international levels. In problem and a wide range of methods has been pro-
order to inform resource allocation decisions, an agreed posed for this purpose. Some have depended solely on
method of measuring research capacity would be desir- publication output [3], while others have taken account
able. This in turn implies some method for measuring ofindicessuchasresearchgrantincomeandadministra-
tive service commitments [4]. Nevertheless, none have
achieved widespread acceptance. The intention of all
Correspondence:[email protected]
1NorwegianCentreforIntegratedCareandTelemedicine,UniversityHospital such measures is to provide management information;
ofNorthNorway,POBox6060,TromsøN-9038,Norway that is, information which can be used to assess the
2FacultyofHealthSciences,UniversityofTromsø,TromsøN-9037,Norway
©2013Wootton;licenseeBioMedCentralLtd.ThisisanOpenAccessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreative
CommonsAttributionLicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,and
reproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page2of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
performance of individual researchers, or groups of Based on my own experience of being assessed by pro-
researchers. The assessments may be cross-sectional, for motioncommitteesandDeansofmedicine,aresearchout-
example to compare productivity between organizational put measurement based only on publications and grant
units, or they may be longitudinal, such as to examine income would be considered too narrow. A credible re-
the variation in the performance of an individual searcherwouldbeexpectedtoundertakePhDsupervision.
researcherovertime. Other factors, such as writing book chapters or national
How then do we measure research productivity?There committeework,wouldcertainlybeassumedtooccur,but
is a wide range of indicators and metrics which mightbe only their absence would be remarked upon. My hypoth-
relevant. Indicators ‘indicate’ impact, but they do not esis is that a useful indicator of research output can be
attempt to quantify it, while metrics are ‘numerical indi- constructed,basedonthreevariables.
cators’ that allow the impact to be quantified. In the
present context, measuring the impact of research is too Methods
large a task; see Banzi et al. [5] for an overview of A simple and generalizable indicator of research output
reviews. Thus the present paper concerns the preceding is defined. This is based on data relating to individual
step, the measurement of research output. This raises researchers. The feasibility and utility of the indicator is
the question, what do we mean by research output? Re- examined in a number of different settings. This is fol-
search output is the product of performing research lowed by a discussion about its interpretation. The three
activities. Thus it may include: i) publishing: writing indicator variables are: i) research grant income; ii) peer-
papers (peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed), book reviewed publications; and iii) PhD students supervised.
chapters, books, popular articles; ii) gaining grants: com- Activity in each domain is converted to points, which
petitive (peer-reviewed) and non-competitive; iii) super- are used to calculate a score for research output. The
vising research students (PhDs and others); iv) serving samplingepochisone calendaryearbydefault.
as a peer-reviewer (of grants and papers), examining
PhDs,acting asamemberofaneditorialboard;v)giving Grants
lectures and other presentations, especially as an invited Credit is given for research grants: i) which have been
(keynote) speaker; vi) contributing to national and inter- awardedcompetitively;ii)withfundingforallorpartofthe
national committees, for example to produce practice year in question. These are weighted by grant-holder posi-
guidelines; and vii) filing patents. This list is not tions (see the section on Name Position below). Grant in-
exhaustive. comeisused tocalculategrant “points”.Thegrantincome
is that proportion of the grant which is payable during the
Choiceofindicatorvariables yearinquestion.Withinagivencountry,thecurrencyunit
What variables should be used to measure research ofthat country can be scaled appropriately in order to cal-
output? Clearly there is a very large number of pos- culatethesepoints,forexampleinNorway,whereresearch
sible indicator variables. However, equally obviously, grants are commonly of the order of millions of Kroner
there is a tradeoff: as the complexity of the indicator (NOK), a convenient scaling factor is 1 million NOK = 1
increases, so it becomes more difficult to collect the grant point. To facilitate comparisons between countries,
requisite data. Furthermore, there is less likelihood of wheredifferentcurrenciesmaybeinuse,differentcurrency
generality, since there will be less agreement about scaling factors are required. This matter is considered
what are the proper constituent variables and how furtherbelow.
they are defined. For example, what constitutes a
prestigious lecture at an important meeting? A com- Papers
plex indicator may be better tailored to a particular Credit is given for papers: i) which are listed in Medline
local environment, but almost by definition will (strictly, listed in PubMed), in other words, peer-reviewed
become less generally applicable. papers; ii) which have been published during the year in
The literature contains many reports of research prod- question (note that the date of publication is available in
uctivity, in most of which research output has been Medline).TheseareweightedbythejournalImpactFactor
based on publications, usually peer-reviewed papers. (usingImpactFactorsfromastandardsource,suchasJCR
Some studies havealso taken into account grant income. Web)andalsoweightedbyauthorposition(seethesection
A number of these studies are summarized in Table 1. on Name Position below). Peer-reviewed papers are used
Of the twelve studies listed, seven assessed research per- tocalculatepublication“points”.
formanceat the level ofindividual researchers,two stud-
ies assessed it at departmental level, and four assessed it PhDstudents
at the institutional level. The period over which data Credit is given for supervising PhD students: i) where the
were collected rangedfrom onetotenyears. subject matter of the thesis is relevant to the research
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page3of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
Table1Studiesinwhichresearchproductivitywasassessed
Study Levelofassessment Country indicatorvariables1 Samplingepoch2
Brocato2005[10] Individual US peer-reviewedjournal 2years
articles
474facultymembersinfamily nationalconference
medicinedepartments presentations
nationalgrants
Cox1977[11] Institutional US papersintheAPA 5years
journals
76graduateprogramsin
psychology
Dakik2006[12] Individual Lebanon journalpapers 5years
(Medlinearticlesonly)
203medicalfacultystaffata
universityinBeirut
Ellwein1989[3] IndividualandDepartmental US journalpapers 3years
Facultymembersin12
departmentsofauniversity
medicalfaculty
Howard1987[6] Institutional US papersinAPA 10years
journals
75institutionsgranting
doctoraldegreesin
psychology
Iyengar2009[13] Individual US journalpapers 2years
158individualfaculty grantincome
membersofaschoolof
researchspaceused
medicine
Kranzler2011[14] Institutional US papersfromPsycInfo 5years
database
59institutionsoffering
doctoralprogramsinschool
psychology
Mezrich2007[4] Individual US peer-reviewedpapers 1year
Membersofalargeuniversity otherpublications
radiologydepartment
grants
Salaran2010[15] Individual Australia books(singleormulti-author) 3years
271academicstaffin5 papersinrefereed
universitiesinMelbourne journals
editedbooks
chaptersinrefereed
books
Tien1996[16] Individual US publications 2years
2586facultymembersinUS
universities
Toutkoushian2003[17] Institutional US publications(ISI) 1year
1309collegesanduniversities
Wagner1994[18] Departmental US publicationsin6 5years
familymedicine
Familymedicinedepartments
journals
1InsomestudiespublicationcreditwasadjustedtotakeaccountofthejournalImpactFactorand/ortheauthorpositioninarticleswithmultipleauthors.
2Periodoverwhichdatawerecollected.Somestudiescollectingdataover5yearsreporteditforshorterperiods.
interests of the organization; ii) where the supervision Researchoutputscore
occursduringallorpartoftheyearinquestion.Thesuper- The research output score is the sum of grant
visionmustberegisteredwiththerelevantuniversity.Note, points (g), publication points (p) and PhD supervi-
however,thatnocreditisgivenaftertheduedateforcom- sion points (s):
pletion, usually three years from the date of registration.
PhDsupervisionisusedtocalculatePhD“points”. R¼gþpþs
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page4of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
For simplicity, these variables are given equal weight- Table2Schemesforassigningcredittoauthorsofmulti-
ing, although obviously other weighting schemes could authorpapers
beused,asrequired. No.ofauthors Firstauthor Second Third Fourth Fifth
(A)MonotonicschemeproposedbyHowardetal.[6].
Dimensionality
1 1.0000
Theresearchoutput scoreasdescribed allowscomparison
2 0.6000 0.4000
within an organizational unit, for example from year to
3 0.4737 0.3158 0.2105
year. It also allows comparison between units in the same
4 0.4154 0.2769 0.1846 0.1231
country.However,thereisaproblemwithcomparisonbe-
5 0.3839 0.2559 0.1706 0.1137 0.0758
tweenunitsfromdifferentcountries,becausethegrantin-
come is measured in units of the national currency. (B)FLAEschemeproposedbyTscharntkeetal.[8].
Publication points and student points are dimensionless, 1 1.0000
being composed of factors such as ratios (such as journal 2 0.66667 0.33333
impact factor and authorcredit)and purenumbers.Grant 3 0.54545 0.18182 0.27273
points, as described above, have the units of the national 4 0.50000 0.12500 0.12500 0.25000
currency in which grants are awarded. Therefore direct 5 0.47619 0.09524 0.09524 0.09524 0.23810
comparisons between countries are not possible without
(C)FLAEschemeproposedbyEllweinetal.[3].
non-dimensionalization of the grant points. This can be
1 1.0000
achieved by adjusting the reported grant income for pur-
2 0.5556 0.4444
chasing power in the country concerned. As suggested
3 0.3846 0.3077 0.3077
above, a currency scaling factor can be used, which is
4 0.3086 0.2469 0.1975 0.2469
loosely based on the perceived value of grants. However,
this is a subjective decision. Furthermore, currency scaling 5 0.2577 0.2062 0.1649 0.1649 0.2062
factorsarelikelytochangefrom year to year asaresult of (D)FLAEschemeproposedinthepresentstudy.Formorethantwo
authors,thefirstauthorisassigned50%ofthecredit,thelastauthor
inflation.
30%,andthealso-ranshavetheremaining20%dividedbetweenthem.
A more rigorous method would be to express grant in-
1 1.0000
come in multiples of some common amount, the amount
2 0.7000 0.3000
being meaningful in all countries conducting medical
3 0.5000 0.2000 0.3000
research. One possibility would be to use the national
research council’s standard award for a PhD studentship. 4 0.5000 0.1000 0.1000 0.3000
For example, at the time of writing, the Norwegian Re- 5 0.5000 0.0667 0.0667 0.0667 0.3000
search Council offers three-year studentships at 877,000
NOK/year. Thus grant income in that country would be calculate, is shown in Table 2D. For simplicity, the
divided by 877,000. This normalizes the grant points same weighting scheme is used in the present work
between countries and simultaneously deals with the for both papers and grants.
problemofinflation.
Feasibility,validityandutility
Nameposition The feasibility of the research output score was examined
The order of authors’ names on a paper has a deep and by using it to calculate the research output from two re-
mystical significance. Everyone agrees that the order searchdepartments,indifferent countries. Thetwo groups
matters, although there is no consensus about the are of similar size. Each group conducts medical research
details. Howard et al. proposed a monotonic scheme of inassociationwithauniversityteachinghospital.
assigning author credit in multi-author papers [6]. The The validity of the score was examined by comparing it
weights (credit) for authors on papers with up to five withanindependentexpertassessmentoftheresearchout-
authors areshown inTable 2A. putofthemembersofoneofthedepartments.Theassess-
While this scheme has the merit of simplicity, it ment was made by the recently-retired head of the
does not reflect the common perception in medicine department (and ex-Dean of the Faculty) who rated each
that the last author of a multi-author paper has per- researcher, based on their publications and research per-
formed a group leadership role and should receive formance generally. A five-point scale was used (1 = very
almost as much credit as the first author [7]. This can good;2=good;3=average;4=poor;5=verypoor).
be taken into account in a “first-last-author-emphasis” Theutilityoftheresearchoutputscorewasexaminedin
or FLAE scheme, such as that proposed by Ellwein three different (national and multinational) settings: i) in-
et al. [3] or Tscharntke et al. [8], see Table 2B,C. A dividualcomparisonwithinaresearchgroupforaparticu-
similar scheme, which is slightly less complicated to lar year; ii) longitudinal comparison of a research group
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page5of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
from year to year; iii) comparison between two research contains a few research-active individuals and a larger
groupsforaparticularyear. number ofresearch-inactive staff.
Results
Longitudinalcomparison
Feasibility
Research Department A contains about 40 research staff.
There were no conceptual difficulties in using the simple
Thetotalresearchoutput scoreforthedepartmentcanbe
measureproposed.Inpractice,obtainingaccuratedataon
calculated as described above. In 2011, the total research
publications, grants and PhD supervision was straightfor-
output of this research department was 80.1 units. This
ward, although performing the calculations manually was
can be normalized to provide an average output score per
verytedious.Aweb-basedcalculatorwasthereforewritten
staff member, which was 2.3 units/full-time equivalent
toautomatetheprocess.
(FTE). Over a period of several years, the number of staff
has fluctuated, as a result of arrivals and departures. The
Validity
trend in the Department’s output score, see Figure 3,
There was a significant correlation (r = 0.71) between
reflects the perception that although staff numbers have
the independent expert assessment of the researchers’
decreased slightly, research productivity (output per head)
performance and their research output scores, Figure 1.
hasrisen.
A formal method comparison was not attempted as the
output scoresareunbounded.
Betweengroupcomparison
Utilityindifferentsettings Research Department B is of approximately the same
The utility of the proposed measure was examined in dif- size as Department A, but it is located in a different
ferent settings to confirm that the results appeared plaus- country with a different currency. A currency scaling
ibleandpotentiallyusefulformanagementpurposes. factor was chosen (£100,000 = 1 grant point) based on
the total grant income of the two departments. Research
Within-groupcomparison Department B had a total research output score of 67.1
Research Department A has been in existence for about in 2010, which was somewhat higher than the research
seven years. Research output scores for its individual output of Research Department A, seeTable 3. The pat-
members, calculated as described above, are shown in tern of individual research output scores was similar in
Figure2A.Theoutput scoresrangefrom 0to8.Thefre- the two departments, in other words, a small number of
quency distribution is positively skewed (Figure 2B). The individuals with high scores and a proportion with low
output scores reflect the perception that Department A orzeroscores,seeFigure4.
Figure1Independentexpertassessmentandresearchoutputscores.Theexpertassessmentratingsareshownreversedforclarity
(1=worst;5=best).
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page6of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
Figure2Researchoutputscores(in2011)fortheindividualmembersofResearchDepartment(A);thefrequencydistributionof
scores(B).
Portfoliobalance approximately equal parts, publications, grants and
As can be seen in Figure 2A, real-life data from a re- PhD supervision. How can this “balance” in the port-
search department with 41 staff show that some indi- folio be measured? One simple method is to calcu-
viduals have a research output based approximately late the variance in the three components, i.e. the
equally on grants, publications and supervision. On greater the difference between the values of the three
the other hand, some individuals have a research points, the higher the variance. To facilitate compari-
output based only on publications, or only on grants, son between individuals with different research out-
or only on supervision. It can be assumed that a puts, the variance can be normalized, the simplest
well-rounded, mature researcher would not exhibit method being to compute the coefficient of variation
the latter patterns. Indeed, it seems reasonable to (CV) or relative standard deviation.
expect that the research output of a well-developed UsingthedatasetofFigure2Aindicatesthatsomeindivi-
and successful researcher would comprise in dualshaveawellbalancedportfolioofresearchoutput,with
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page7of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
Figure3Researchproductivityandstaffsizeinsuccessiveyears(samecurrencyscalingfactoreachyear)forResearchDepartmentA.
CVs below 100%, while others have much more disparate researchunit,theheadofanorganizationalunit(theDean
scores resulting in CVs of nearly 200%. This information or the Vice Chancellor, say), by the funding body con-
represents a useful managerial tool, which can potentially cerned (national research council, for example) or by the
be used to influence research performance. Figure 5 shows researchers’ peers. These people may also take different
theoutputscoresoftheresearchersplottedagainsttheCV viewsabouttheunitofassessment,whichcouldbefaculty
intheirscores(note,CVisplottedonareversescale).Thus members, a center, a department, a research group or an
the best researchers in this group fall into the upper right individual researcher. Nonetheless, the present paper
quadrant (A), with a high research output and a low CV; showsthatasingleassessmentsystemmaysuffice.
those in the other quadrants are less successful in one or
more ways. There are four researchers with high output.
However, one of them is mainly supervising PhD students, Assumptions
which is responsible for nearly 90% of that person’s output Calculation of the research output score rests on a num-
score. Perhaps this individual needs to be encouraged to ber of assumptions. These include: i) Grants and papers:
publishmoreandtoseekadditionalgrants. a method of assigning credit to authors of multi-author
workisrequired,andthereisnogenerally agreedsystem
for doing this. The present paper proposes a simple sys-
Discussion tem; ii) Grants: if two otherwise identical grants are
Those who fund research and those who influence fund- madeforthesame pieceofworkatdifferentinstitutions,
ingdecisions,wouldideallyliketomeasuretheimpactof the amount of the award will not necessarily be the
that research. In practice, this is not straightforward and same. For example, institutions in capital cities often
there have been few attempts to make comprehensive have higher overheads. Thus the research credit for the
assessments of research impact in health-related R&D. grantwillnotbethesame;iii)Papers:thejournalImpact
Research output is undoubtedly a weak proxy for re- Factor has many well-known drawbacks. On the other
search impact, but is arguably better than nothing. The hand,itiswidelyusedinmedicine.Intheproposedindi-
present paper proposes a simple method of measuring cator, non-Medline papers are ignored, largely for con-
researchoutput. venience. Publications in non-Medline journals are
In the measurement of research output, the perspective therefore considered in the same way as books and
of the assessor may be a factor to be considered. For reports, i.e. worthy output, but not readily quantifiable
example, different views may be taken by the head of a for present purposes; iv) PhD supervision: supervision of
Table3Researchoutputoftwogroupsbasedindifferentcountriesforthesameyear(2010)
Staff Totalgrantincome Currencyscalingfactor Research Meanresearch
(FTE) (pergrantpoint) output output(perFTE)
DeptA 36.6 14.6millionNOK 1millionNOK 57.6 1.6
DeptB 34.0 £1.57million £100,000 67.1 2.0
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page8of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
Figure4Betweengroupcomparison.
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page9of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
Figure5Researchoutputandportfoliobalance(CVoftheconstituentscores)forResearchDepartmentAin2011.Themostsuccessful
researcherslieinquadrantA,withahighresearchoutputandalowCV,thereforeawellbalancedportfolio(circles).Theleastsuccessful
researcherslieinquadrantC(squares).
research students is only one form of postgraduate years of employment could reasonably be treated as full
teaching. On the other hand, it is an important part of years, since all publications from any one calendar year
research output; v) Weighting: in the proposed indicator, were included. For the present purposes, staff employed
equal weight is given to grant income, publications and for part of the year in question are treated as though
students supervised. That is, in assessing research out- they hadworked forthewhole year.
put, the implication is that a grant of 1 million NOK is
worth as much to the organization as a single-author Part-timestaff
paper in a journal with IF = 1. In the absence of a case The calculation of research output as described above
for something more complicated, equal weighting seems relates to full-time staff. Researchers may, however, be
appropriate; vi) Research output components: a well- employedonapart-timebasis,suchasonedayperweek.
balanced portfolio is desirable. I am not aware of any In principle, their research output could be adjusted to
publishedwork onthistopic; vii)Currency scaling factor provide a more equitable basis for comparison with full-
(or other normalizing factor): an appropriate factor must time staff. Suppose a researcher is employed on a one
beusedifscores aretobe compared between countries. day per week contract. Thatresearcher’soutput could be
adjustedto reflect thefact that therest ofthestaff inthe
Leaversandjoiners departmentareemployedtoworkfivedaysperweek.So,
The research output score is calculated for a particular for grants awarded and papers published, perhaps the
period: one year by default. During this sampling period, part-time researcher should receive greater credit: their
staff turnover may occur. To adjust for staff who leave outputcouldbemultipliedbysomefactor,perhapsbyfive.
or join during the year in question, a “year_fraction” can The position with PhD supervision is debatable. On bal-
be calculated, for example a researcher who leaves on anceitseemsthatmostone-day-a-weekresearcherswould
the 30th of June would have been in post for six months be likely to be supervising students in their four-day-a-
of the year in question. The year_fraction would there- week“proper”jobs.SoperhapsthecreditforPhDsupervi-
fore be 0.5, and the person’s research output can be sionshouldbereducedbysomefactor,perhapsbyfive.
adjusted by this factor. However, in practice it is difficult The factor used to take account of the output from
to arrive at a sensible adjustment scheme: a researcher part-time staff could be in linear relation to their em-
who leaves after six months could reasonably be sup- ployment, for example the output from a 20% person is
posed to have an adjusted output twice as high; but a multiplied by 5, the output from a 10% person is multi-
researcher who leaves after six days ... should the plied by 10, and so on. In practice, this seems to be too
adjusted output be 365/6, i.e. approximately 60-times as heavily weighted in favor of the part-timers. A damped
high? Ellwein et al. [3] pointed out that partial calendar weighting scheme could therefore be employed, where
WoottonHealthResearchPolicyandSystems2013,11:2 Page10of14
http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/11/1/2
Table4Baselinemodel
(A):Structure
No.intheDept
HeadofDept 1 1 1
GroupA GroupB GroupC
Groupleader 1 1 1 3
Mid-rankresearcher 2 2 2 6
Post-doctoralfellow 4 4 4 12
PhDstudent(junior)* 3 3 3 9
PhDstudent(senior)** 3 3 3 9
Total 13 13 13 40
*FirsthalfofPhDstudentship;**SecondhalfofPhDstudentship
(B):Grants.ThetotalgrantincomefortheDepartmentis16.8millionNOK
Grantincomeperperson(NOK/yr) Grantpointsperperson*
HeadofDept 250,000 0.250
Groupleader 500,000 0.500
Mid-rankresearcher 1,000,000 1.000
Post-doctoralfellow 750,000 0.750
PhDstudent(junior) 0 0.000
PhDstudent(senior) 0 0.000
*Grantpoints=grantincomemultipliedbythecurrencyscalingfactor(1millionNOK=1point)
(C):Papers. ThetotalnumberofpaperspublishedbytheDepartmentis91
No.ofpapers Author-position/ Authorscore Journalimpact Publication
perperson,a* Typeofpaper perpaper,b* factor,c* pointsperperson*
HeadofDept 1 AU6of6 0.300 1.5 0.450
Groupleader 2 AU3/4/5of6 0.050 1.5 0.150
Mid-rankresearcher 3 AU2of3 0.200 1.5 0.900
Post-doctoralfellow 4 AU3of3 0.300 1.5 1.800
PhDstudent(junior) 0 - - - 0.000
PhDstudent(senior) 2 FirstAUof2 0.700 1.5 2.100
*Publicationpoints=axbxc
(D):PhDstudents.ThetotalnumberofPhDstudentssupervisedbymembersoftheDepartmentis18
PhDstudentsperperson PhDpointsperperson*
HeadofDept 0 0
Groupleader 1 1
Mid-rankresearcher 1.5 1.5
Post-doctoralfellow 0.5 0.5
PhDstudent(junior) 0 0
PhDstudent(senior) 0 0
*PhDpoints=noofstudentssupervised
(E):Points.Scores,perindividualandtotalfortheDepartment
Totalscore Portfolio No.of Totalgrant Total TotalPhD Total Score%of
perindividual balance(%)* individuals points publicationpoints points score Depttotal
HeadofDept 0.700 97 1 0.250 0.450 0.000 0.700 1
Groupleader 1.650 78 3 1.500 0.450 3.000 4.950 6
Mid-rankresearcher 3.400 28 6 6.000 5.400 9.000 20.400 25