Purpose:A key question when ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities.This paper presents a method for classifying the varying degrees of interde...Purpose:A key question when ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities.This paper presents a method for classifying the varying degrees of interdependency between academic hospitals and universities in the context of the Leiden Ranking.Design/methodology/approach:Hospital nomenclatures vary worldwide to denote some form of collaboration with a university,however they do not correspond to universally standard definitions.Thus,rather than seeking a normative definition of academic hospitals,we propose a three-step workflow that aligns the university-hospital relationship with one of three general models:full integration of the hospital and the medical faculty into a single organization;health science centres in which hospitals and medical faculty remain separate entities albeit within the same governance structure;and structures in which universities and hospitals are separate entities which collaborate with one another.This classification system provides a standard through which publications which mention affiliations with academic hospitals can be better allocated.Findings:In the paper we illustrate how the three-step workflow effectively translates the three above-mentioned models into two types of instrumental relationships for the assignation of publications:"associate"and"component".When a hospital and a medical faculty are fully integrated or when a hospital is part of a health science centre,the relationship is classified as component.When a hospital follows the model of collaboration and support,the relationship is classified as associate.The compilation of data following these standards allows for a more uniform comparison between worldwide educational and re search systems.Research limitations:The workflow is resource intensive,depends heavily on the information provided by universities and hospitals,and is more challenging for languages that use nonLatin characters.Further,the application of the workflow demands a careful evaluation of different types of input which can result in ambiguity and makes it difficult to automatize.Practical implications:Determining the type of affiliation an academic hospital has with a university can have a substantial impact on the publication counts for universities.This workflow can also aid in analysing collaborations among the two types of organizations.Originality/value:The three-step workflow is a unique way to establish the type of relationship an academic hospital has with a university accounting for national and regional differences on nomenclature.展开更多
基金supported by RISIS-Research Infrastructure for Research and Innovation Policy Studies an EU FP7 Research Program Project(grant agreement no:313082)。
文摘Purpose:A key question when ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities.This paper presents a method for classifying the varying degrees of interdependency between academic hospitals and universities in the context of the Leiden Ranking.Design/methodology/approach:Hospital nomenclatures vary worldwide to denote some form of collaboration with a university,however they do not correspond to universally standard definitions.Thus,rather than seeking a normative definition of academic hospitals,we propose a three-step workflow that aligns the university-hospital relationship with one of three general models:full integration of the hospital and the medical faculty into a single organization;health science centres in which hospitals and medical faculty remain separate entities albeit within the same governance structure;and structures in which universities and hospitals are separate entities which collaborate with one another.This classification system provides a standard through which publications which mention affiliations with academic hospitals can be better allocated.Findings:In the paper we illustrate how the three-step workflow effectively translates the three above-mentioned models into two types of instrumental relationships for the assignation of publications:"associate"and"component".When a hospital and a medical faculty are fully integrated or when a hospital is part of a health science centre,the relationship is classified as component.When a hospital follows the model of collaboration and support,the relationship is classified as associate.The compilation of data following these standards allows for a more uniform comparison between worldwide educational and re search systems.Research limitations:The workflow is resource intensive,depends heavily on the information provided by universities and hospitals,and is more challenging for languages that use nonLatin characters.Further,the application of the workflow demands a careful evaluation of different types of input which can result in ambiguity and makes it difficult to automatize.Practical implications:Determining the type of affiliation an academic hospital has with a university can have a substantial impact on the publication counts for universities.This workflow can also aid in analysing collaborations among the two types of organizations.Originality/value:The three-step workflow is a unique way to establish the type of relationship an academic hospital has with a university accounting for national and regional differences on nomenclature.
