On standardization of the Activity Index |
| |
| Institution: | 1. CNRS (LAMSADE, UMR 7243) & Université Paris Dauphine, Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France;2. Ghent University, Department of Data Analysis, H. Dunantlaan, 1, B-9000 Gent, Belgium;1. Instituto de Turismo y Desarrollo Económico Sostenible Tides, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain;2. Departamento de Estadística, Investigación Operativa y Computación, Universidad de La Laguna, Spain;1. Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China;2. Institute for Education and Information Sciences, IBW, University of Antwerp (UA), Antwerp B-2000, Belgium;3. KU Leuven, Department of Mathematics, Leuven B-3000, Belgium;4. National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China;5. Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7PE, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | Relative Specialization Index (RSI) was introduced as a simple transformation of the Activity Index (AI), the aim of this transformation being standardization of AI, and therefore more straightforward interpretation. RSI is believed to have values between ?1 and 1, with ?1 meaning no activity of the country (institution) in a certain scientific field, and 1 meaning that the country is only active in the given field. While it is obvious from the definition of RSI that it can never be 1, it is less obvious, and essentially unknown, that its upper limit can be quite far from 1, depending on the scientific field. This is a consequence of the fact that AI has different upper limits for different scientific fields. This means that comparisons of RSIs, or AIs, across fields can be misleading. We therefore believe that RSI should not be used at all. We also show how an appropriate standardization of AI can be achieved. |
| |
| Keywords: | Relative Specialization Index Activity Index |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
