水研センター研報，第34号，71−84，平成23年
Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 34, 71‑84, 2011

Scientific publications in fisheries science. Selection of target
institutions for benchmark evaluation
Masatsugu TAKANO＊1, Tomoko ITO＊2, Takashi HOSOBAMI＊2, and Yoshioki OOZEKI＊1

Abstract : A benchmark evaluation was carried out on scientific publications in fisheries science and related disciplines from the Japanese Fisheries Research Agency (FRA) and international research institutions. Data for the period 2000−2009 were obtained from the Web of
Science. A total of 2,678 scientific papers were published by the FRA. Research institutions
were classified according to their similarity to the FRA in published disciplines, and six international institutes were selected. Radar charts of the percentage of publications between
12 selected disciplines related to fisheries science were constructed for the six institutions
and the FRA. The relationship between the number of publications and the Hirsch-index (hindex), estimated for six international institutions and five domestic fisheries universities,
indicated a linear regression, and the performance of institutions could be compared by the
relative position to the regression line.
Key words : h-index, bibliometrics, benchmark evaluation, institute evaluation

Introduction

to be biased in comparisons between researchers
from different disciplines or different age groups

Scientific evaluations, using metric indicators(van Leeuwen 2008), although the h-index canthat include the number of scientific papers andbe easily applied to the evaluation of individual

the number of times cited, have been employedresearchers and organizations (Kinney 2007). Thus,

as indices of research activity and/or scientificwhen the h-index is used as an indicator of scientificachievements within/between countries andachievement for benchmark analyses, the selection

research institutions (Ueda and Kurata 1988, Tanaka

of target institutions is crucial.

2001, King 2004). Data from online databases, such

There are few studies comparing scientificas Thomson Scientificʼs Web of Science (WOS),

publishing activities among institutions inhave been used in international comparative

fisheries science and related disciplines (Dong andanalyses (King 2004) and, in Japan, as guidelines in

Zhang 2007). In addition, there is no appropriatescience and technology policy planning (NISTEP,

methodology to assess or compare individual

2005). Several indices have been proposed for the

research institutions in different countries andcharacterization of scientific output; for example,

universities studying fisheries science in Japan. In

the Hirsch-index (h-index: the descending ranking

this paper, we propose an approach for selecting

number of the list of publications that corresponds

target institutions for benchmark analyses fromto or equals the number of received citations per

the publication data of scientific journals andpaper) (Hirsch 2005), and other more advanced

categorized disciplines acquired from the WOS.

derivative indices, such as the g-index (Egghe 2006),

Preliminary benchmark tests were conducted on

A-index, R-index, AR-index (Jin2007) and IQp

the Fisheries Research Agency (FRA), compared(Antonakis and Lalive 2008). The h-index was shownto selected international institutions and domestic

2010年 月30日受理（Received on August 30. 2010）＊1
Operations Evaluation Section, Headquarters, Fisheries Research Agency, 2-3-3 Minatomirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 220-6115, Japan＊2
Tsukuba Office, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat, Ibaraki 305-8601, Japan

Masatsugu TAKANO, Tomoko ITO, Takashi HOSOBAMI and Yoshioki OOZEKI

Fig. 1. Protocol for selecting target international institutions and benchmark testing (A). Domestic
benchmark tests were conducted on five nominated universities studying fisheries science (B).

fisheries universities, by analyses of the relationships

in scientific journals between 2000 and 2009 were

between the number of publications and h-index

obtained from the Thomson Scientific s Web ofrelating to fisheries science (Fig. 1). Recent changes

Science (WOS : http://scientific.thomson.com/prin the scientific performance of the FRA wereoducts/wos/). Before accessing the data, a list ofalso compared to international institutes for an

institution names, including abbreviations, wasindependent administrative institutions (IAI)

drawn up from both the names used in

evaluation.

Suisan Gakkaishi (http://www.miyagi.kopas.co.jp/

NipponJSFS/jsfs-english/E-PUB/index.html) and from theMaterials and Methods

names of Japanese institutions used in Aquaculture(http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescrip
tion.cws̲home/503302/description#description), because the registered institution abbreviations differ

The numbers of papers from the FRA publishedbetween journals in WOS (http://thomsonscientifi

Benchmark evaluation of scientific publications in fisheries sciencec.jp/products/wos/search̲tips/index9.shtml). The

WOS. The same publication might be nominatedfollowing fields tag was used after considering all

in several disciplines during the WOS sorting

names of FRA institutions:procedure and the total number of publications

AD=(FISHERIES RES AGCY OR TOHOKU

from each institution might differ from the sum of

NATL FISHERIES RES INST OR NATL RES

publications in all disciplines. The percentage of

INST FAR SEAS FISHERIES OR NATL RES

publications in the 12 disciplines per all publications

INST FISHERIES SCI OR SEIKAI NATL

was illustrated for the target institutions in radar

FISHERIES RES INST OR JAPAN SEA

charts for comparison with the FRA.

NATL FISHERIES RES INST OR NATLRES INST AQUACULTURE OR NATL CTR
STOCK ENHANCEMENT OR NATL RES
INST FISHERIES ENGN OR NATL SALMON

An international benchmark test was conducted

RESOURCES CTR OR FISHERY RES AGCY OR

by plotting the number of publications and h-index

FRA OR HOKKAIDO NATL FISHERIES RESof the target institutions and the FRA plot was

INST OR JAPAN SEA FARMING ASSOC OR

compared to the estimated regression line.

JAPAN SEA NATL FISHERIES INST OR NALT

Five domestic universities involved in fisheries

RES INST FAR SEAS FISHERIES OR NATL

science (Tokyo University, Hokkaido University,

RES INST FISHERIES & ENVIRONM INLANDTokyo University of Marine Science and Technology,

SEA)

National Fisheries University, and Kinki University)

The result was refined by the Countries/

were also compared to the FRA using WOS data.

Territories name Japan .

Radar chart analyses to describe the university

FRA publication data were classified by journal,

features were conducted for the three main FRA

then categorized into domestic (Japanese) anddisciplines (Fisheries, Marine & Freshwater Biology,international journals according to the editorial

and Oceanography), as assessed in the previous

society. The number of FRA publications inanalyses (see Results). The number of publications

each journal was then counted and the top fiveand h-index was investigated by regression analysis

international journals selected.

in comparison with the international institutions.

The top 30 institutions in the top five journals
were listed in order of the number of publications
from the WOS data and institutions listed in threeor more of the five journals were selected as the

Recent changes in the scientific performance ofcandidate institutions for comparison to the FRA.

the target institutions and FRA were also compared.

Institutions showing a wide range of research

In Japan, IAIs are evaluated every year by theiractivities and universities were excluded; those

governing Ministries and the Commission on Policy

remaining were selected as the target institutions.

Evaluation and Independent Administrative Agency
Evaluation (http://www.soumu.go.jp/english/aeb/ index.html). The Minister then reviews all IAI
business after a mid-term objective period of 3 − 5The number of the publications in the top 12

years. The performance of the FRA during the first

disciplines within the FRA (Fisheries, Marine

and second mid-term periods (2001 − 2006 and 2006

& Freshwater Biology, Oceanography, Zoology,− 2011 for data obtained during 2006 − 2009) was

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Ecology,

then compared in relation to the target international

Veterinary Science, Biotechnology & Applied

institutions. The three main FRA disciplines

Microbiology, Genetics & Heredity, Microbiology,(Fisheries, Marine & Freshwater Biology andPhysiology, Endocrinology & Metabolism) and the

Oceanography) and the increase in FRA publications

number in the same disciplines from the target

for these disciplines were compared with the six

institutions, as selected above, were obtained fromtarget institutions.

Masatsugu TAKANO, Tomoko ITO, Takashi HOSOBAMI and Yoshioki OOZEKI
Table 1. List of publications in which the Fisheries Research Agency published papers during 2000 −2009. The total number of publications from the FRA was 2,678 during 2000−2009.

Results

Japanese Fish Disease Society: 88), and Zoological
Science (The zoological Society of Japan: 80). The
top five international journals were Aquaculture(89), Marine Ecology Progress Series (66), Journal of

The total number of FRA publications was 2,678,

Fish Biology (56), Fish Physiology & Biochemistrywhich includes all publications that FRA researchers(40), and Marine Biology (38) (Table 1). Fifteen

included in the author lists. The total number ofjournals published more than 30 papers and thetimes FRA publications were cited was 19,512, withnumber of papers in these journals was 1,414 (52.8%

an estimated h-index of 45 for the period 2000 −of all publications). Eight journals were domestic,

2009. The journal list of 2,678 publications indicatedincluding English journals and seven journals werethat four domestic and one international journalinternational, and the number of publications waswere ranked in the top five (Table 1). These were

1,061 (39.6%) and 353 (13.2%), respectively. Fifty-four

Fisheries Science (The Japanese Society of Fisheries

journals published more than 10 papers and the total

Science: 374), Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi (The Japanese

number of papers published in the 54 journals wasSociety of Fisheries Science: 297), Aquaculture

2,026 (75.7%). Eleven journals were domestic and(International Journals: 89), Fish Pathology (The43 journals were international, and the number ofBenchmark evaluation of scientific publications in fisheries science
Table 2. Number of the scientific publications in the five major journals from the target institutions
during 2000−2009.

published papers was 1,111 (41.5%), and 915 (34.2%),

excluded. Thus, five institutions (IMR, NOAA, DFO,

respectively.

IFREMER, INRA) and a high-ranking institution in

Seventeen institutions were listed in threejournals or more of the top five FRA journals. Three

all five journals (CSIC) were selected as the target
institutions for comparison with the FRA.

institutions were listed within the top 30 places for

The number of scientific publications in the fivethe five journals. Those were CSIC (Consejo Superior

journals is listed in Table 2. These five internationalde Investigaciones Científicas, Spain), University ofjournals have the following features:

Tasmania (Australia) and University of Washington

Aquaculture : 5,099 papers were published over 10(USA). Five institutions, IMR (Institute of Marine

years (2000−2009). FRA contributed 89 papers −Research, Norway), NOAA (National Oceanic andin 9th place; IFREMER was in first place with 190

Atmospheric Administration, USA), James Cook

papers, and the number of papers from Japan was

University (Australia), Bergen University (Norway),368.

and Tokyo University (Japan) were listed in four ofMarine Ecology Progress Series : 5,049 papers

the five journals. Nine institutions − DFO (Fisheries

were published and FRA contributed 66 papers& Oceans Canada, Canada), IFREMER (Institut

during 2000−2009. FRA was in 18th place; NOAA

francais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer,

was in first place with 156 papers. The number ofFrance), INRA (Institut national de la recherche

papers from Japan was 278.

agronomique, France), Chinese Academy of Science

Journal of Fish Biology: 3,416 papers were

(China), Dalhousie University (Canada), Hokkaido

published during 2000−2009 and FRA contributed

University (Japan), Goteborg University (Sweden),

56 papers. FRA was in fourth place and UBC (theUniversity of Maryland (USA) and University of

University of British Columbia, Canada) was in

Queensland (Australia) − were listed in three offirst place with 68 papers. The number of papers

the five journals. All 17 institutions are involved infrom Japan was 206.

similar disciplines to the FRA; however, institutions

Fish Physiology & Biochemistry : 731 papers werewith a wide scope of research and universities were

published over 10 years (2000 − 2009), with theMasatsugu TAKANO, Tomoko ITO, Takashi HOSOBAMI and Yoshioki OOZEKI
Table 3. Number of publications from seven institutions sorted by the 12 disciplines during 2000−2009.
Abbreviations are as in Table 2.

FRA contributing 40 papers. The FRA was in

Physiology (3rd), and Endocrinology & Metabolism

first place; the NIBB (National Institute for Basic(3rd).

Biology, Japan) was in second with 32 papers. The

For the FRA, the percentages of publications

number of papers from Japan was 148.

for the 12 disciplines were as follows (Fig. 2):

Marine Biology : 2,769 papers were published overFisheries (45.7%), Marine & Freshwater Biology

10 years (2000−2009) and the FRA contributed 38(23.4%), Oceanography (13.7%), Zoology (10.5%),

papers. The FRA was in sixth place; in first place

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology (7.7%), Ecology

was the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and(7.7%), Veterinary Science (6.4%), Biotechnology &Marine Research (Germany) with 70 papers. The

Applied Microbiology (3.0%), Genetics & Heredity

number of papers from Japan was 206.

(2.5%), Microbiology (2.5%), Physiology (2.5%) and
Endocrinology & Metabolism (2.5%). Institutions
with a high percentage of publications (30% or more)in Fisheries and Marine & Freshwater Biology

The number of scientific publications from thewere FRA, IMR and DFO, and IMR and DFO,FRA and the six target institutions, sorted byrespectively. Three institutions, NOAA, INRA anddiscipline, was obtained from the WOS and shown

CSIC, showed no prominent discipline (less thanin Table 3. For each discipline, the FRA was30%). The analysis of each institution, including FRA,

ranked as follows among the target institutions:is described as follows:

Fisheries (1st), Marine & Freshwater Biology (6th),

FRA: Almost 50% of publications were related

Oceanography (6th), Zoology (3rd), Biochemistry &to Fisheries; <30% were published in otherMolecular Biology (3rd), Ecology (7th), Veterinary

disciplines: Marine & Freshwater Biology,

Science (3rd), Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology

Oceanography, and Zoology. The FRA was a(4th), Genetics & Heredity (4th), Microbiology (4th),

major institution in the field of Applied Fisheries,

Benchmark evaluation of scientific publications in fisheries scienceFig. 2. Radar charts of the percentage of publications in 12 disciplines related
to fisheries from seven institutions. Abbreviations of the seven institutions areshown in Table 2.

ranking first out of seven institutions in Fisheries.

Freshwater Biology is supported by that of

IFREMER : The total number of publications

Oceanography and Fisheries.

from IFREMER was 3,398, with a total of 35,781

IMR : The total number of publications from thecitations. The average number of times cited was

IMR was 1,348 with a total times cited of 13,663.

10.53 and the h-index was 57. This institution is

In the results, the average times cited was 10.14

categorized as basic biology because Marine &and the h-index was 44. This institution majoredFreshwater Biology was ranked third out of thein Oceanography and Ecology, in contrast to thetotal number of publications in the 12 disciplines

IFREMER, although the characteristics of this

(3,429 publications). The study of Marine &institution were similar to the IFREMER because

Masatsugu TAKANO, Tomoko ITO, Takashi HOSOBAMI and Yoshioki OOZEKI

Fig. 3. Number of papers published and h-index in three major disciplines from seveninstitutions (FRA, IFREMER, IMR, DFO, NOAA, INRA, CSIC) during 2001−2009. A regression
curve was estimated for six target international institutions. The FRA data are shown as a
black circle for all publications and as a white circle with two Japanese journals exclude.

the stem discipline was Marine & Freshwater

was high but low in areas such as Biochemistry &Biology with the support of both Oceanography

Molecular Biology.

and Fisheries. These differences might be related

INRA : The total number of publications from theto the higher ratio of Fisheries than that in the

INRA was 28,740 owing to its broad coverage of

IFREMER.

disciplines. The highest number of publications

DFO : Total number of publications of the IMR

was in Plant Sciences (3,420). Therefore, thewas 2,629 and total number of times cited waspercentages were low in all 12 disciplines,

29,317. Thus, the average times cited was 11.15

although the percentage in Biochemistry &and the h-index was 56. This institution was

Molecular Biology was high.

ranked in the middle, between FRA and IMR,

CSIC: The total number of publications frombecause the percentage of Fisheries papers was

CSIC was 58,407, with the highest number (5,090)

highest in the international target institutions andin Biochemistry & Molecular Biology. Although

the chart was similar to IMR. It differed from the

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology had the highest

FRA in that the percentage in Ecology was highnumber, the percentage was low (8.7%) due to theand that in other disciplines, such as Biochemistrybroad coverage of disciplines. The percentage of& Molecular Biology, was low.

papers in Fisheries was 0.72%.

NOAA : The shape of the radar chart was
similar to both IFREMER and IMR, although thepercentage of all Fisheries-related disciplines was
low due to their broad coverage of disciplines.

The relationship between the number of

The NOAA published 3,954 reports in the field

publications and h-index in the three main threeof Meteorology/Atmospheric Science of a total of

disciplines for the FRA and six target institutions

10,233 publications during 2000 − 2009. It differedshowed a positive correlation, an increase in thefrom the FRA in that the proportion in Ecology

h-index indicated an increase in the number ofBenchmark evaluation of scientific publications in fisheries scienceFig. 4 Radar charts of the three major disciplines (Fisheries, Marine & Freshwater Biology andOceanography) at Japanese institutions (FRA, Tokyo University, Hokkaido University, Tokyo
University of Marine Science and Technology, National Fisheries University, Kinki University).

papers (Fig. 3). From the regression line, theTechnology, National Fisheries University, and Kinki

FRA was at a lower position compared to other

University) were conducted on the three major FRA

institutions. The difference, however, was notdisciplines (Fisheries, Marine & Freshwater Biology

significant from this positive correlation in theand Oceanography). (Fig. 4) Although it was difficult

number of papers and h-index when two domestic

to extract accurate statistics due to the broad range

journals (Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi and Fisheriesof disciplines studied by several universities, the

Science) were excluded from the FRA data.

features of the five universities are described as

Radar chart analyses of the number offollows:

publications from five domestic universities involved

Tokyo University : The number of publications

in fisheries science (Tokyo University, Hokkaido

from Tokyo University was almost equal in the

University, Tokyo University of Marine Science andthree disciplines, although the number in Marine

Masatsugu TAKANO, Tomoko ITO, Takashi HOSOBAMI and Yoshioki OOZEKI

Fig. 5. Number of papers published and h-index in the three major
disciplines from six Japanese institutions, as in Fig. 4, during 2001−2009. A
regression curve was estimated at all institutions.

Fig. 6. Number of papers published and h-index in the three major disciplines at all
institutions during 2001−2009. A regression curve was estimated at all institutions.

& Freshwater Biology was slightly higher.

in the Tokyo University of Marine Science andHokkaido University : The number of publications

Technology; the number of publications in Marine

from Hokkaido University was almost equal in the& Freshwater Biology and Oceanography was

three disciplines, although the number in Marine

low.

& Freshwater Biology was lower than the others.

National Fisheries University : National Fisheries

Tokyo University of Marine Science andUniversity had a similar pattern to the Tokyo

Technology : Fisheries was the main discipline

University of Marine Science and Technology.

Benchmark evaluation of scientific publications in fisheries science
Table 4. Changes in the number of papers published in three major disciplines (Fisheries, Marine& Freshwater Biology, Oceanography) from seven institutions (FRA, IFREMER, IMR, DFO,NOAA, INRA, CSIC) during the periods 2001−2006 and 2006−2009.

Fisheries was the main discipline; the number ofwere published in Oceanography.

publications in Marine & Freshwater Biology andOceanography was low.

Tokyo University and Hokkaido University

Kinki University : Kinki University also had ashowed a similar pattern with almost equal numbers

similar pattern to the Tokyo University of Marine

in the three disciplines. Meanwhile, the FRA and

Science and Technology, although few publications

National Fisheries University showed a similarMasatsugu TAKANO, Tomoko ITO, Takashi HOSOBAMI and Yoshioki OOZEKI
tendency, although they differed in the number

the CSTP reported 3,827 as the number of citations,of papers published. Tokyo University of Marine

but our research indicated 4,056. These differences

Science and Technology was similar to Kinki

could be due to the source database: the CSTP used

University due to the low number of publications in

the "ISI National Citation Report for Japan 1999 −Oceanography.

2008 (NCR-J)", which may differ in institution names,

The relationship between the number ofincluding abbreviations. For example, the number

publications and the h-index indicated a positiveof publications from the FRA was 2,348 during 1999

correlation between the five domestic universities− 2008, when

and the FRA, although the relationship was

NATL CTR STOCK ENHANCEMENT ,logarithmic (Fig. 5).

SALMON RESOURCES CTR and FISHERY RESJAPAN SEA FARMING ASSOC ,NATLJapanese and International institutions showed a

AGCY were excluded from the field tags that we

positive correlation, with an increase in the h-index

used. Related to this issue, other databases, such aswith increasing number of papers published (Figure

Scopus, are becoming increasingly active (LaGuardia

6). When two journals (Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi and2005, Meho and Rogers 2008) and the number ofFisheries Science) were excluded from the FRA

journals collected in these databases have beendata, eliminating the influence of domestic journals,

increasing. Therefore, reliability should increase withall the institutions, including the FRA, could be

an increase in data.

plotted on the regression curve.

Analysis revealed that the seven target
institutions could be divided into three categories:(1) major institution in Fisheries (FRA), (2) major
institution in Marine & Freshwater Biology

The performance of the seven institutions during(IFREMER, IMR, DFC, NOAA), and (3) major

the first and second mid-term period (we used

institution in Marine & Freshwater Biology but not

the period 2006-2009, as data for the full 2006-2010

in Fisheries (INRA, CSIC). FRA excelled in the three

mid-term are not yet compiled) was compared bymajor disciplines (Fisheries, Marine & Freshwater

the number of papers published per year (Table

Biology and Oceanography) and was ranked at4). For all institutions, the number of publications

the first place in Fisheries. INRA and CSIC are

per year increased, with IMR in particular showing

integrated research institutions that publish a large

a 1.5-fold increase. During the period 2001 − 2006,

number of papers not only in Fisheries but also in

FRA was ranked in first place in the discipline ofa broad range of disciplines. These two institutions

Fisheries, 5th place in Marine & Freshwater Biology

are included for comparison by restricting theand sixth place in Oceanography (Table 4). However,disciplines to 12 or three categories, as same for thethe rankings in Marine & Freshwater Biology and

FRA. Overseas universities were also excluded from

Oceanography dropped to sixth and seventh place,the comparison; however, these universities could

respectively, during 2006 − 2009, although Fisheries

be used in future comparisons with the FRA due towas still ranked in first place.

their active publishing activity in Fisheries.
The relationship between the number of papers

Discussion

and h-index indicated that the h-index of the
FRA was lower than other institutions but, when

Data on the publications emanating of scientific

Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi and Fisheries Science

institutions, accessed via the internet, are valuable

were excluded, the h-index was similar to otherin selecting target institutions for benchmark

organizations. This means that the research

testing; however, the results are highly dependentachievements of Japanese institutions, including

on the database. Between 1999 and 2008, the WOS

the FRA, and overseas institutions were almost

recorded 2,537 publications from the FRA, while theequal. However, these findings also suggested that

Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP)

domestic journals are rarely cited by international

reported the number as 2,348 (CSTP 2009). In 2008,

institutions; a fact that should be consideredBenchmark evaluation of scientific publications in fisheries science
when international and Japanese institutions are

Scholarly Impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h.

compared. This discrepancy should be resolved at., 59, 956‑969.

an institutional level by encouraging submissions tointernational journals, while opening discussions on

Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagne, É.,language, the number of journals and the evaluation

Côté, G., Larivière, V., and Gingras, Y., 2006:of papers collected in databases (Archambault

Benchmarking scientific output in the social.

2006, Stergiou and Tsikliras 2006).
Differences in the number of researchers and thesciences and humanities: The limits of existing
68, 329 342.

databases.

budget of these institutions should be considered

Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP).

in international benchmarking, although the

2009: The findings about the activity such as andifficulties for obtaining information on the number

incorporated administrative agency, the nationalof researchers (not total staff numbers) and scientificuniversity corporation about technology (2009).

funding. Nevertheless, the number of publications(http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/siryo/haihu87/siry

per researcher or per amount of scientifico3-3-8.pdf, in Japanese).

funding should be standardized in future studies.

Dong, M.Q., and Zhang H.H. 2007: Characterization of

Furthermore, institutions including the FRA have

SCIE papers compared among five universities

several missions other than scientific publications,with fishery or marine disciplines.
6, 368‑373.

those are the promotion of domestic fisheries
industry and the technical assistance for prefectures

Egghe, L., 2006: Theory and practice of the g-index.

in Japan. Therefore, the other multidimensional69, 131‑152.

indices for the benchmark evaluation should be

Hirsch, J.E. 2005: An index to quantify an individual

searched in future analyses.

s scientific research output.

Temporal analyses revealed the shift of strategic
focus of science in institutions and/or the results

102, 16569‑16572.

of reorganization of institutions. In this context, theJin, B., Liang, L., Rousseau, R., and Egghe, L., 2007:

recent reorganization of the FRA might reflect in

The R- and AR-indices. Complementing thethe decrease of publications in Oceanography andin the increase in Marine & Freshwater Biology(Table 4). Therefore, this analysis is considered, 52, 855‑863.

h-index.

King, D.A. 2004: The scientific impact of nations.
430, 311‑316.

useful not only in the assessment of the achievement

Kinney, A.L., 2007: National scientific facilities

of mid-term policy of FRA but also in the planningand their science impact on nonbiomedicalof the policy, and should be conducted at 3 −research.
104,

5-year intervals for mid-term policy planning andevaluation.

17943‑17947.
LaGuardia, C., 2005: Scopus vs. Web of Science.
Acknowledgments

130, 40‑41.
Meho, L.I., and Rogers, Y., 2008: Citation

This work would not have been possible without

Counting, Citation Ranking, and h-index of

the support of the librarians of Tsukuba Office,human-computer interaction researchers: A

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Researchcomparison between Scopus and Web of Science.

Council Secretariat. The authors thank the staff of the
Operations Evaluation Section of the Japan Fisheries
Research Agency for their helpful comments.

59, 1711‑1726.
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy(NISTEP), 2005: Study for Evaluating theReferences

Achievements of the S&T Basic Plans in Japan,
Comparative Analysis on S&T Policies andAntonakis, J., and Lalive R. 2008: Quantifying

Their Achievements between Major Countries.

Masatsugu TAKANO, Tomoko ITO, Takashi HOSOBAMI and Yoshioki OOZEKINISTEP report no. 91 (in Japanese)
Stergiou, K.I., and Tsikliras, A.C., 2006:
Underrepresentation of regional ecologicalresearch output by bibliometric indices.
6, 15‑17.
Tanaka, H., 2001: Bibliometrics by using Web
of Science. The Journal of the Information
Science and Technology Association., 44, 2‑7 (inJapanese)
Ueda, S., and Kurata, K., 1988: National productivityof journal articles as index of research activities.
The Journal of the Information Science andTechnology Association., 38, 217‑223 (inJapanese)van Leeuwen, T., 2008: Testing the validity of the
Hirsch-index for research assessment purposes.
, 17, 157‑160.

水研センター研報，第34号，71-84，平成23年
Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 34, 71-84, 2011

和文要旨
水産学における学術論文のベンチマーク評価

関を選定した。さらに水研センターの研究分野別論文−ベンチマーク評価のための対象機関の選定−

数から，上位12分野について比較対象機関における各分野の割合から各機関の特徴を比較した。上位分野

高野正嗣（水研セ）・伊藤智子（農林水産技術会議）
・（水産学，海洋・淡水生物学，海洋学）について論文

細羽見喬（農林水産技術会議）
・大関芳沖（水研セ）

数と h-index の関係を比較することで，各機関の特徴を抽出した。水研センターの2000〜2009年の発表論文

我が国における第期科学技術基本計画（平成18年

月28日閣議決定）ならびに現在検討中の第数は2 678報であった。論文数上位

国際誌による比期科学

較から，IFREMER（フランス海洋開発研究所），IMR

技術基本計画においては，国際ベンチマークの必要性（ノルウェー海洋研究所），DFO（カナダ漁業海洋省），

が強く謳われているが，我が国の水産研究機関ではこNOAA（アメリカ海洋大気局），INRA（フランス国立

れまで国際ベンチマーク調査の報告はない。そこで水農学研究所），CSIC（スペイン国立研究協議会）が水産総合研究センターを含む各国の水産関係機関の特徴

研センターとの比較可能機関として選ばれたが，これを把握し，ベンチマーク評価を行うために学術文献デらの機関と比較すると，水研センターの論文は水産学

ータベースを用いた調査を実施した。Web of Scienceに集中していた。論文数と h-index との関係はばらつにより水研センターの2000〜2009年の発表論文数を調きのある正相関を示しており，プロットの位置から見べ，水研センターにおける論文数上位

ると水研センターは標準的なパフォーマンスを示して国際誌を用いて，各機関における順位と論文数を基に比較対象機いた。