On standardization of the Activity Index

Janez Stare and Nataša Kejžar

Journal of Informetrics, 2014, vol. 8, issue 3, 503-507

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 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157714000431
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:503-507

DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.004

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Informetrics is currently edited by Leo Egghe

More articles in Journal of Informetrics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().