Research Productivity Index (RPI): a new metric for measuring universities’ research productivity

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to propose a new metric, called the Research Productivity Index (RPI), which can be used to measure universities’ research productivity and benchmark them accordingly at both national and global levels.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper used a partial-factor productivity measurement as the basis to develop RPI, which considers the ratio of total weighted publications (outputs) to the used input (affiliated researchers). To demonstrate the applicability of the RPI, data were collected from Scopus to assess the research productivity of a university in the UAE, as an example. The methodological steps (algorithm) were demonstrated using mathematical and query functions to extract the required data from the Scopus data set and then compute the RPI value.

Findings

A new effective and objective metric was developed for measuring universities’ research productivity.

Practical Implications

This paper suggests that Scopus could use RPI as a metric for measuring the research productivity of each university. RPI can be used by university administrators and government decision-makers to evaluate and rank/benchmark institutions’ research productivity. They can consequently make more effective decisions with regard to the efficient allocation of research budgets and funding.

Originality/value

This paper distinguishes between measuring research impact and research productivity. It proposes RPI for measuring the latter, whereas most existing metrics measure the former. RPI is an objective measurement, as it is calculated based on a constant period of time, three years, and takes into consideration the university size (i.e. affiliated researchers) in addition to the quality and quantity (total) of research outcomes.

Citation

Halaweh, M. (2021), "Research Productivity Index (RPI): a new metric for measuring universities’ research productivity", Information Discovery and Delivery, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-01-2020-0003