<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec><h3>Purpose</h3>
<p>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.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>
<p>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.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Findings</h3>
<p>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 research systems.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Research limitations</h3>
<p>The workflow is resource intensive, depends heavily on the information provided by universities and hospitals, and is more challenging for languages that use non-Latin 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.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Practical implications</h3>
<p>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.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Originality/value</h3>
<p>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.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

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 research 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 non-Latin 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.

The Three-Step Workflow: A Pragmatic Approach to Allocating Academic Hospitals’ Affiliations for Bibliometric Purposes

Leiden University (Centre for Science and Technology Studies - CWTS)

Journal of Data and Information Science

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Purpose
A key question when ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities. This paper...

Organization	Separate output	Combined output	Percentage
Université de Tours	3,463	4,525	31%
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours	1,062
University of Zurich	18,573	22,297	20%
University Hospital Zurich	3,724
University of Parma	5,222	5,924	13%
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma	702
Complutense University of Madrid	12,908	14,300	11%
Hospital Clínico San Carlos	1,392
University of Ottawa	14,959	16,474	10%
The Ottawa Hospital	949
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario	566
University of Ioannina	3,479	3,689	6%
University Hospital of Ioannina	210
University of Turku	7,849	8,195	4%
Turku University Hospital	346
Palacký University Olomouc	4497	4,620	3%
University Hospital Olomouc	123
Australian National University	13,932	14,158	2%
Canberra Hospital	226
University of Hong Kong	17,790	18,015	1%
Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong	225
University of Buenos Aires	8,434	8,492	1%
Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín	58
University of New Mexico	8,138	8,179	0%
UNM Health Sciences Center	41

The Three-Step Workflow: A Pragmatic Approach to Allocating Academic Hospitals’ Affiliations for Bibliometric Purposes

Article Category: Research Paper

Publicado en línea: 03 feb 2022

Páginas: 20 - 36

Recibido: 16 feb 2021

Aceptado: 17 ene 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2022-0006

Palabras clave
Academic hospitals, Universities, Bibliometrics, Organizational affiliations, Rankings

© 2022 Andrea Reyes Elizondo et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Overview of the separate output per university and hospital as well as their combined output. The percentage shows the increase of publication count of the university when the hospital is included as a component.

The Three-Step Workflow: A Pragmatic Approach to Allocating Academic Hospitals’ Affiliations for Bibliometric Purposes

Article Category: Research Paper

Publicado en línea: 03 feb 2022

Páginas: 20 - 36

Recibido: 16 feb 2021

Aceptado: 17 ene 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2022-0006

Palabras claveAcademic hospitals, Universities, Bibliometrics, Organizational affiliations, Rankings

© 2022 Andrea Reyes Elizondo et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Overview of the separate output per university and hospital as well as their combined output. The percentage shows the increase of publication count of the university when the hospital is included as a component.

Palabras clave
Academic hospitals, Universities, Bibliometrics, Organizational affiliations, Rankings