Towards Scientists and Researchers Classification Model (SRCM)-based machine learning and data mining methods: An ISM-MICMAC approach

Noaman, Amin Y.; Gad-Elrab, Ahmed A. A.; Baabdullah, Abdullah Mohammed Article Towards Scientists and Researchers Classification Model (SRCM)-based machine learning and data mining methods: An ISM-MICMAC approach Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK) Provided in Cooperation with: Elsevier Suggested Citation: Noaman, Amin Y.; Gad-Elrab, Ahmed A. A.; Baabdullah, Abdullah Mohammed (2024) : Towards Scientists and Researchers Classification Model (SRCM)-based machine learning and data mining methods: An ISM-MICMAC approach, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK), ISSN 2444-569X, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 9, Iss. 3, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100516 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/327419 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Towards Scientists and Researchers Classification Model (SRCM)-based machine learning and data mining methods: An ISM-MICMAC approach Amin Y. Noaman a , Ahmed A.A. Gad-Elrab a , Abdullah M. Baabdullah b, * a Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia b Department of Management Information Systems, Faculty of Economics and Administration, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia ARTICLE INFO Article History: Received 24 March 2024 Accepted 15 July 2024 Available online 29 July 2024 ABSTRACT This study introduces an innovative automated model, the Scientists and Researchers Classification Model (SRCM), which employs data mining and machine-learning techniques to classify, rank, and evaluate scientists and researchers in university settings. The SRCM is designed to foster an environment conducive to creativity, innovation, and collaboration among academics to augment universities’research capabilities and competitiveness. The model’s development roadmap, depicted in Figure 1, comprises four pivotal stages: preparation, empowerment strategies, university-recognised research ID, and evaluation and re-enhancement. The SRCM implementation is structured across three layers: input, data mining and ranking, and recommendations and assessments. An extensive literature review identifies ten principal procedures further evaluated by experts. This study utilises Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) to analyse these procedures’ interactions and hierarchical relationships, revealing a high degree of interdependence and complexity within the SRCM framework. Key procedures with significant influence include determining the input data sources and collecting comprehensive lists of university scientists and researchers. Despite its innovative approach, SRCM faces challenges, such as data quality, ethical considerations, and adaptability to diverse academic contexts. Future developments in data collection methodologies, and addressing privacy issues, will enhance the long-term effectiveness of SRCM in academic environments. This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of academic evaluation systems and offers practical insights for universities that aim to implement sophisticated data-centric classification models. For example, by implementing data-centric models, universities can objectively assess faculty performance for promotion or tenure. These models enable comprehensive evaluations based on publication records, citation counts, and teaching evaluations, fostering a culture of excellence and guiding faculty development initiatives. Despite its limitations, SRCM has emerged as a promising tool for transforming higher education institutions’academic management and evaluation processes. © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Keywords: Scientists and Researchers Classification Model Machine learning Data mining ISM-MICMAC JEL classification codes: O30 O31 O32 O33 Introduction The classification of scientists and researchers is a fundamental aspect of academic institutions’organisational structure. It delineates various levels of expertise and experience within the academic community, providing a framework for evaluating and recognising contributions to research and scholarship. Publication and citation metrics play a significant role in evaluating the productivity and impact of scientists and researchers. Metrics like the h-index, introduced by Hirsch (2005), and journal impact factors (IF), as discussed by Lippi and Mattiuzzi (2017), are commonly used to assess research output and influence. These metrics contribute to the classification process by providing quantitative measures of scholarly achievement, aiding in tenure decisions, grant proposals, and awards nominations. The publication of scientific research is a cornerstone of knowledge dissemination, playing a pivotal role in scientificand academic evaluation, fundraising, and career progression. This assertion is supported by extensive research, including Abbott et al. (2010),Honavar and Bansal (2022),Lippi and Mattiuzzi (2017),andUsman et al. (2021). Publishing is particularly important in developing countries. The intricate interplay between the academic sphere and political dynamics often hinders the adoption of internationally recognised standards in awarding academic and scientific titles. This challenge has been extensively documented in the studies by Zerem (2013,2014,2017)andZerem et al. (2021). * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Baabdullah). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100516 2444-569X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 Journal of Innovation &Knowledge https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge In various academic circles, the utilisation of dependable scientific metrics to evaluate the merits of individual contributions by scientists is of significant importance. Indeed, the assessment of such contributions is considered a scientific endeavour (Honavar and Bansal, 2022;Van Noorden, 2010;Thwaites, 2014). Beyond scrutinising scholarly publications, diverse scholarly pursuits indicate scholarly credibility. These pursuits include factors such as the quantity and calibre of external grants secured, leadership roles in national or international academic societies, participation in the editorial boards of esteemed journals, involvement in government-sponsored national peer review committees, number of successfully supervised PhD students, and extent of coverage in mainstream journalism. While these activities contribute to gauging a scientist’s credibility, pertinent scientific metrics primarily focus on publication regulations and overlook other science-related criteria that typically influence scientists’promotions and tenure evaluations (Zerem, 2017;Zerem et al., 2021). This limitation arises from the heterogeneous nature of these activities, with each possessing distinct characteristics and necessitating diverse criteria for evaluation (Zerem, 2017;Zerem et al., 2021). No universal evaluation criteria exist for these scientifically relevant parameters, and their values are assessed individually, depending on the purpose of the evaluation. According to researchers in the field (Gao et al. (2016), Garfeld (1955), Hirsch (2005),Van Noorden, 2010,Senanayake et al. (2015),Stonehill (1965),Sugimoto and Larivi ere (2017),Thwaites (2014),Zerem (2014,2017) and Zerem et al. (2021)), the most prevalent approach in scientific metrics typically involves the utilisation of several key indicators, including the Hindex, Impact Factor (IF), and the total number of citations. The Hindex is used to measure the impact of an individual researcher by balancing the number of publications with the number of citations received. The IF evaluates the importance of a journal by calculating the average number of citations of recent articles published in that journal (Kavic and Satava, 2021). The total number of citations is a straightforward count of the number of times others have cited a researcher’s work. These metrics, each with its own unique focus, collectively contribute to assessing the impact and quality of scientific research. In addition, Institutional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for academic staff serve as benchmarks for evaluating their overall contributions within an institution (Amoah and Minishi-Majanja, 2022;O’Connell, 2022). These KPIs typically encompass research productivity, teaching effectiveness, service and engagement, and professional development (Christensen et al., 2020;Gee and Cooke, 2018). Research productivity involves metrics such as publication output, citations received, research funding secured, and patents filed (Carpenter et al., 2014). Teaching effectiveness is evaluated through student satisfaction, retention rates, graduation rates, and teaching evaluations (Bini and Masserini, 2016). Service and engagement metrics assess participation in committees, community outreach, leadership roles, and collaboration with external partners (Weerts and Sandmann, 2010). Additionally, professional development indicators include attendance and invitations at professional events and conferences, completion of education programs, mentorship activities, and recognition received (Cornelius et al., 2020;Keyser et al., 2008). These KPIs collectively offer a comprehensive view of an academic staff member’s performance, reflecting their multifaceted academic contributions to research, teaching, service, and professional growth within the institution. Additionally, citation analysis plays a crucial role in evaluating an individual’s research performance in the academic community, making it a major tool in metrology (Aksnes et al., 2019;Bornmann, 2017;Bu et al., 2020;Cronin et al., 1997). In addition to citations, the number of publications and H-index are widely used indices in the research evaluation process (Honavar and Bansal, 2022). For a comprehensive and equitable evaluation of individuals within universities or institutions, as well as by funding bodies and the broader scientific community, scientometric criteria must consider the specificfield, discipline, and temporal context of the research. As emphasised by Honavar and Bansal (2022),Usman et al. (2021), and Waltman (2016), this nuanced approach ensures a more accurate and fair assessment. By considering these factors, evaluations can more effectively reflect the unique challenges and dynamics inherent to different scientific disciplines and the evolution of research impact over time. However, the proliferation of scientific databases and libraries such as Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Dimension, and PubMed has been rapid and extensive. Consequently, selecting the most suitable database for research has become increasingly complex. This challenge has been well documented in studies by Bakkalbasi et al. (2006),Falagas et al. (2008),Martín-Martín et al. (2018a,b), Meho and Yang (2007),Mongeon and Paul-Hus (2016), Singh et al. (2021), and Visser et al. (2021). Each database offers distinct features and covers different scopes of the literature, making the decision-making process more intricate and demanding careful consideration by researchers. Over the past decade, higher education has seen widespread publications on different university rankings, including information on research findings (Aguillo et al., 2006;Buela-Casal et al., 2007;Kwiek, 2021;Wilbers and Brankovic, 2021;Williamson et al., 2020). In the realm of bibliometrics, the current era can be aptly termed the ‘Classification Culture’. Classification undeniably represents a cornerstone of bibliometric studies and reports (Fasi, 2023). It is vital for distilling and presenting simplified yet crucial information on leading entities within specific scientific disciplines. This widespread reliance on classification underscores its integral role in shaping the current understanding of scientific impact and progress. However, the widespread use of this classification system does not overshadow its inherent limitations. It is imperative to critically approach the interpretation and design of bibliometric classifications. As highlighted by Gadd (2021) and Van Ran (2005), this approach involves acknowledging the potential biases and errors that may arise in classification systems and exercising caution in how these systems are constructed and read. The need for a nuanced understanding of these limitations is not just a matter of academic rigour; it is also essential to maintain the integrity and accuracy of bibliometric analyses. Traditionally, when conducting research assessment exercises in scientometric studies, the predominant practice has been extracting research output data from one of the two widely recognised scholarly databases, WoS and Scopus. Extensive comparisons between the WoS and Scopus databases have been conducted, involving direct assessments of coverage (e.g., Gavel & Iselid, 2008;Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016;Singh et al., 2021) and citation comparison studies (e.g., Martín-Martín et al., 2018b). Numerous previous studies, including those mentioned above, consistently suggest that Scopus encompasses a broader range of journals than WoS, while the latter maintains a more selective approach to journal coverage. In addition to these established databases, the Google Scholar database, which debuted in the same year (2004) as Scopus, has also been utilised in various bibliometric studies, although less frequently in research assessment exercises (see, for instance, De Winter et al., 2014;Falagas et al., 2008;Harzing and Alakangas, 2016;Mayr and Walter, 2007). Over the past few years, the bibliometric research community has witnessed the emergence of new databases, such as Microsoft Academic Search and Dimensions, which have garnered significant attention. In light of these developments, numerous studies (e.g., Harzing, 2019;Visser et al., 2019, 2020) have compared the article coverage of these new bibliographic data sources with established databases. Presently, Clarivate Analytics owns WoS. According to the latest data from 2020, the WoS Core Collection encompasses over 74.8 million scholarly data and datasets, along with 1.5 billion cited references dating back to 1900, spanning 254 subject disciplines. The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) covers 9200 journals across A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 2 178 scientific disciplines, totalling 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references. The Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) includes 3400 journals across 58 social science disciplines, with 9.37 million records and 122 million cited references. The Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) indexes 1800 journals across 28 Arts & Humanities disciplines, comprising 4.9 million records and 33.4 million cited references. Despite significant growth in publication sources over the years, the SCIE, SSCI, and AHCI have maintained a selective approach to coverage, with indexing decisions made at regular intervals. When a journal is indexed by one of the citation indices, all articles become part of the WoS database. The WoS interface offers various data search and download facilities, providing users access to various fields. For basic usage, the downloaded data include approximately 68 field tags, including Publication Type (PT), OI (Orcid Identifier), and Document Type (DT) (Birkle et al., 2020). Scopus extended its coverage to publication records dating back to 1788, adding approximately three million yearly records. The updated content coverage guide, last revised in October 2019, reveals that Scopus encompasses approximately 23,452 active journal titles, 120,000 conferences, and 206,000 books from over 5000 international publishers. It is important to note that the master journal list in Scopus includes entries from many journals, some of which are no longer active. In contrast to WoS, Scopus features a single citation index that spans journal and conference articles across various subject areas. As outlined in the Scopus content coverage guide, it comprises approximately 77.8 million core records (Baas, 2019; Singh, 2021). The existence of many science metric systems indicates that no perfect scientific metric index accurately measures the scientific contributions of scientists and scientific journals (Singh et al., 2021). The most widely accepted parameters for assessing the significance of a scientific journal are the IF on WoS and the total number of citations received by articles published in the journal. However, evaluating an individual scientist’s significance is more complex than assessing a scientific journal. The value of a researcher’s scientific production cannot be gauged by the prestige of the journal in which the article is published (Zerem 2017). Several challenges complicate the evaluation of a scientist’s significance and the value of their scientific output. Some authors may have a higher volume of published articles, and various types of articles may be published in journals indexed in different scientific databases. The limitations of using the number of citations of a specific article as a measure of its value include the time lag required and bias towards older articles of similar quality. In addition, the contributions of each author to a scientific article are often unequal. Consequently, finding appropriate measures and scientific criteria for objectively assessing new scientific research and providing accurate qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate new articles are formidable tasks. Unfortunately, the widely used H-index scientometric system does not resolve these challenges. The H-index only estimates the number of individual citations of an article and does not consider the individual contributions of each author. In the Hindex system, all authors of an article are treated equally, which fails to address the persistent issue of expanding author lists with contributors whose impact may be minimal or non-existent (Zerem, 2017, 2018). Furthermore, a novel criterion known as the Z-score has been introduced in the Journal of Biomedical Informatics, offering an objective means to estimate the scientific impact of both individual scientists and institutions (Zerem, 2017,2018;Zerem and Kunosi c, 2018). The Z-score involves the calculation of the author’s overall academic score, which comprises two key components: the Author Contribution Score (ACoS) and the Author Citation Contribution Score (ACCS). The ACoS is determined by considering the scientific value of the journal in which an article is published and the specific contributions of the authors to that article. The ACCS is calculated based on the scholarly impact of a given article, measured by the number of citations received and the authors’individual contributions to the article. A dedicated computer programme called Z-Calculator was developed to facilitate the application and computation of the Zscore. This tool incorporates all parameters outlined in the criteria and is tailored for use by professionals. The Z-score calculator is designed to be compatible with all browsers and is equipped with automated data collection capabilities when linked to the browser (Zerem, 2017;Zerem and Kunosi c, 2018). This innovative approach aims to provide a comprehensive and automated means for assessing the scientific impact of scientists and institutions. The aforementioned scientific metrics primarily evaluate the significance of scientific output through citation counts and may not comprehensively reflect a scientist’s overall contributions. In addition, while it is widely acknowledged that academic excellence in teaching, practical activities, and scientific production should be the foremost criteria for academic appointments and promotions, the challenges lie in implementing suitable measures and scientific criteria for the objective assessment of scientific research. Using precise qualitative and quantitative data are essential for funding agencies to make informed decision-making (Charnley et al., 2017). The existence of numerous scientific metric systems highlights the absence of a single scientific metric index capable of accurately measuring the scientific contributions of both researchers and journals. Current scientific metric systems have various shortcomings and are not ideal for the unbiased assessment of scientific research and the significance of scientists (Bornmann, 2017). However, the absence of internationally recognised scientific criteria in the evaluation of research leaves room for decision-makers within the academic community to subjectively adjust the criteria to levels they deem relevant without adhering to globally recognised standards (WilsonWilde, 2018). Therefore, there is a pressing need to apply internationally recognised scientific criteria in evaluating scientific research (Kowarsch et al., 2016). These criteria should be continuously improved to remain robust and reflective of the evolving landscape of scientific enquiries. Therefore, scientists and researchers must be classified according to scientific disciplines and international classifications. To fill this gap, this study introduces a scientists and researchers classification model utilising data mining techniques and machine learning. This model aims to categorise, prioritise, and assess university scientists and researchers, thereby strengthening the competitiveness of research and innovation ecosystems and improving universities’research and innovation systems and their competitiveness in scientific research. This comprehensive model provides an incubator environment that stimulates creativity, innovation, and cooperation between scientists and researchers to blend and expand their research knowledge and experiences. In addition, the model supports distinguished scientists with high impact and citations to enhance their contributions from scientific studies, patents, and qualitative intellectual products. It also highlights distinguished scientists in various fields to improve universities’pioneering roles in transferring knowledge and technology. Also, we used the Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) to analyse these procedures’interactions and hierarchical relationships, revealing a high degree of interdependence and complexity within the SRCM framework and to the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies that have employed ISM (Kumar and Goel, 2022). The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the literature review in university scientists and researchers’ classification; Section 3 presents the proposed research approach for categorising, prioritising, and assessing university scientists and researchers; Section 4 explores the methods used for the data collection and analysis and introduces the detailed results obtained by employing the integrated ISM-MICMAC methodology. Section 5 discusses the interconnectedness of various procedures in forming the A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 3 proposed model and introduces its theoretical contributions; and Section 6 concludes the paper. Literature review Measuring scientific performance is more complex and important than it may seem at first glance. Various measurement and comparison methods have been proposed; however, none are perfect. Different approaches have been explored regarding author ranking and expert findings. This literature explores various thematic categories concerning the measurement of scientific performance and evaluation of researchers’contributions (Wagner et al., 2011). It delves into seminal works such as PageRank algorithms, revolutionising web search engine technology. Additionally, researchers propose and refine bibliometric indicators like the H-index and PageRank-index to assess scholarly publication records and scientists’impact comprehensively (Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014;Larivi ere et al., 2014). Beyond traditional metrics, alternative ranking methods tailored to specific needs emerge, such as the Mutual Influence-Based Rank and the O-index, emphasising collaborative contributions and significant research outcomes (Amjad et al., 2016). Furthermore, studies scrutinise the effectiveness of bibliometric indicators, highlighting the composite scoring indicator C as particularly effective for identifying recent Nobel laureates (Cort es and Andrade, 2022). These thematic categories encompass a diverse range of methodologies and approaches aimed at enhancing the evaluation of scientific performance and expertise. In the rest of this section, these thematic categories will be discussed in detail. Web search engine algorithms and citation metrics A pivotal survey paper by Brin and Page (1998) offers a comprehensive overview of a large-scale web search engine, marking the first in-depth public description of such a system. The challenges in this context extend beyond scaling up traditional search methods to accommodate vast volumes of data. The need to leverage additional knowledge embedded in hypertext to significantly enhance search results is recognised. Brin and Page delve into the intricacies of processing unregulated hypertext collections, where content from diverse sources is intertwined, and anyone can publish freely (Brin and Page, 1998). Page et al. (1999) present PageRank, a pivotal approach employed by Google’s search engine to rank web pages objectively and automatically. PageRank is a system designed to assess web pages based on human interests, effectively measuring web content’s significance and relevance. This step is critical in the evolution of search engine algorithms, particularly in handling large-scale and dynamically evolving hypertext collections. Some authors have introduced a novel index for assessing and comparing scholarly publication records known as the PageRankindex. This index incorporates a version of the PageRank algorithm and utilises paper citation networks in its calculation. PageRank, originally designed to model the behaviour of a random web surfer navigating the internet, is well-described in terms of a user exploring web pages. However, a typical internet user employing a search engine to find information may navigate from the current page to others through hyperlinks, which act as references to additional links or websites. PageRank simulates this behaviour by modelling a user who continues to click on successive links randomly. In contrast, the proposed PageRank-index acknowledges that the surfer may sometimes become disinterested and choose a random page based on categorisation rather than continuing in an infinite loop of clicking links. PageRank primarily assesses the quantity and quality of links to a page, providing an approximate measure of the resonance of a website (Page et al., 1999). However, Hirsch (2005) proposes the index h as an adapted method for evaluating scientific merit. Hirsch argues against determining the worth of scientists solely based on the number of publications, as is the case with the H-index, and emphasises the importance of evaluating the quality of their work. Hirsch’s bibliometric indicator gives additional credit to authors who publish alone or in small collaborations, and it also allows co-authors to receive credit for their collaborative publications. This method provides a more nuanced and comprehensive evaluation of a scientist’s contributions. Costas and Bordons (2007) introduce one of the most widely used and simple methods for ranking scientists, known as the H-index. The H-index is considered reliable because it involves straightforward computations that rely on two key factors: the total number of citations an author’s work receives and the author’s rank. Despite its simplicity, the H-index has some limitations. Notably, it does not account for self-citations, potentially leading to index inflation if an author cites their work extensively. To address this limitation, Hirsch (2010) proposes an alternative bibliometric indicator, h, to address honorary authorship. This indicator gives more credit to authors who publish independently or in small collaborations while reducing credit to co-authors in larger collaborations. It aims to provide a more nuanced metric for distinguishing scientists with varying coauthorship patterns. It discourages honorary authorship while recognising the contributions of authors to smaller partnerships. The Hindex considers the same publications when evaluating a scientist’s independent research output. Amjad et al. (2015) suggest that authors’considerations could depend on their collaboration patterns and that collaborations with renowned authors might enhance their influence. They propose a ranking method called Mutual InfluenceBased Rank (MuInfc), which assesses the impact of authors, coauthors, and the presence of prestigious authors. The results obtained using MuInfc outperform existing baseline formulas. The authors analyse their positions by examining their own work and the influence of the work of collaborating authors. This approach offers a more comprehensive view of the author’s impact, accounting for individual and collaborative contributions. Alternative ranking methods and indices Dorogovtsev and Mendes (2015) argue that a researcher’s merit should be assessed based on their most impactful results rather than simply counting the number of publications. This perspective challenges the commonly used H-index-based rankings. In response, they propose an alternative index-based ranking called the O-index. The O-index increases with an increasing average number of citations per paper, providing a more nuanced evaluation of researchers based on the impact of their work. According to the authors, the O-index offers a fair categorisation of good researchers and presents scientists with a natural and easily applicable ranking standard. In a related study, Pacheco et al. (2016) analyse the impact of various academic features on the rankings of prominent Brazilian academics across different fields of knowledge. Their focus includes a list of the country’s most renowned scholars and an examination of the distribution of various academic areas throughout the country. The study characterises scholar rankings in different areas by assessing the distribution of each knowledge area and identifying the distinct academic characteristics associated with a scholar’s ranking position. Notably, they observe interesting patterns, such as the dominance of physicists and health scholars in top-ranking positions. This study sheds light on the factors influencing academic rankings and variations across different knowledge domains. L€ u et al. (2016) introduce an operator H that serves as a connecting chain between various network indices such as degree, H-index, and coreness. Coreness identifies tightly interconnected groups within a network. Conversely, the H-index is a metric to assess an author’s scholarly output and performance over time. These indices have traditionally been treated as unrelated; however, operator H A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 4 establishes a connection between them. Notably, using the operator H to achieve coreness appears contrary to the common practice of iteratively removing nodes with degrees less than ‘k’, a technique often employed to identify a network’s k-core. The k-core represents the maximum connected subgraph of a graph, where all vertices have a degree of at least ‘k’. Building on the H-index method, Yu et al. (2017) extend the application to a weighted network by considering edge weights to quantify links’spreading ability. Similarly, Kumar and Panda (2022) propose an improved ‘WVoteRank’method based on an extended neighbourhood concept. This method considers oneand two-hop neighbours in the voting process to identify influential nodes in a weighted network. WVoteRank is a semi-local method designed to comprehensively cover the neighbourhood of a node, providing enhanced consideration for identifying influential nodes in weighted complex networks and leading to an overall higher influence spread. The ranking of authors and papers is a well-explored area in the literature, often relying on the number of citations to measure an author’s scientificinfluence. Zhang et al. (2017) focus on young researchers who have recently published their first work. This study addresses the challenge of predicting the top ‘k’per cent of researchers with the largest citation increments in a given year. The authors consider various characteristics that might influence an author’s ability to rise quickly and develop an Impact Increment Ranking Learning (IIRL) algorithm. This algorithm utilises these characteristics to predict rising academic stars, emphasising the ranking of citation increments rather than predicting precise citation values. Fast-rising researchers are those who achieve relatively high citation increments over a short period. Similarly, Oberesch and Groppe (2017) identify the criteria for an advanced index and introduce a new index called Mf-index. The Mf-index integrates the advantages of existing bibliometric indicators while minimising their drawbacks. This index is a notable contribution that considers criteria such as career duration, publication and citation age, citation weights for various types of citations, fields of study, and number of co-authors. In their comparison with other bibliometric indicators, Oberesch and Groppe (2017) find that the Mf-index provides a better balance across different elements of research, resulting in a fair comparison of their performance. The introduction of the Mf-index represents an effort to enhance the accuracy and fairness of evaluating researchers based on a combination of factors. Amjad et al. (2018) categorise existing algorithms into three main groups: link analysis, text similarity, and learning-based methods. Link analysis methods are exceptionally reliable for analysing node relationships in networks. They are beneficial for evaluating, retrieving information, and discovering knowledge across various types of networks. Link analysis methods can be executed in an unsupervised manner. This category includes techniques that calculate the rank of academic objects, such as authors, by considering the linkage structure of a relevant graph. Link analysis methods are further divided into two subclasses: iterative and bibliometric. Iterative methods involve multiple iterations to calculate authors’ranks, whereas bibliometric methods depend on calculations involving bibliometric citations. Text similarity methods include approaches that consider specific text data to find related text and utilise these data for rank calculation. Text similarity methods effectively assess the similarity between textual content, enabling the ranking of academic objects based on textual information. Learning-based methods, such as machine learning and classification rules, are applied to estimate the ranks of academic objects. Learning-based methods leverage machine-learning principles to predict and assign ranks to academic entities. Each of these categories represents a distinct approach to ranking academic objects, offering various advantages and considerations based on the type of data and goals of the ranking process. Zhao et al. (2019) have introduced Author PageRank (APR) as a tool to assess the academic impact of authors within a heterogeneous network. The network used in their approach represents interconnected nodes and links of different types. It includes two types of nodes, authors and papers, connected by two types of links: citation links between papers and authorship links between papers and authors. The APR method is designed to rank papers and authors simultaneously within a heterogeneous network. The authors apply the APR method to two large academic networks: one in the health domain and the other in computer science. In their experiments, APR outperforms ten other approaches, highlighting its effectiveness in providing more consistent ranking outcomes than alternative strategies. Additionally, the APR successfully differentiates award-winning authors from other ranking methods. In a related context, Amjad et al. (2020) discuss self-citation, a practice where authors cite their own previous work in a new publication. The authors emphasise the importance of self-citation for scientists to demonstrate their research progress by building upon their prior work. This practice helps avoid redundant explanations in the manuscript by referring to previously published materials. However, the authors note that while self-citation has a considerable impact on science, it also poses the risk of artificial manipulation and needs to be considered carefully within scholarly evaluation processes. Kosmulski (2020) comprehensively analyses a large number of examples to conclude that no other bibliometric indicator places as many recent Nobel laureates in the top 6000 as the composite scoring indicator C. C is a scoring system proposed by Loannidis et al. (2016) and is not field-normalised, meaning that it does not adjust rankings based on specific scientificfields. In field-normalised indicators, the rankings of recent Nobel laureates are not significantly higher, and field normalisation might be more critical for particular disciplines, such as Economics, compared to Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine. Loannidis et al. (2019) have developed a publicly available database of 100,000 top scientists, providing standardised information on various bibliometric indicators, including citations, H-index, co-authorship-adjusted hm-index, and a composite indicator. Separate data are presented for career-long and single-year impacts, with metrics accounting for self-citations and ratios of citations to citing papers. Scientists are categorised into 22 scientificfields and 176 subfields with fieldand subfield-specific percentiles. Kosmulski (2020) emphasises that recent Nobel laureates perform better in terms of the C indicator than any other bibliometric indicator. This study compares the achievements of 97 Nobel Prize-winning scientists in Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, or Physics to top non-Nobel scientists using various bibliometric indicators, including citations, the Hirsch index, highly cited papers, the number of publications, and the composite indicator C. The analysis reveals that recent Nobel laureates are more prominently represented among the top 6000 scientists when assessed using the C indicator compared to other bibliometric measures, such as the Hirsch-type index (excluding selfcitations and not field-normalised), highly cited researchers, hot publications, and highly cited papers. In summary, this study suggests that C is a better indicator of the achievements of Nobel laureates than other bibliometric measures. Expertise-based ranking and expert findings Daud et al. (2020) focus on ranking authors based on their expertise-related topics and present a departure from traditional ranking methods. This approach distinguishes itself by not relying solely on generic author rankings but instead aiming to identify authors based on their expertise in specific topics. The authors introduce new algorithms to assess this ranking system, using existing algorithms’traditional authors’ranking. Subsequently, additional algorithms are applied to determine the relevance of the authors to specific topics. Similarly, Gao et al. (2022) have developed a novel expert-finding model known as topic-sensitive representative author identification (TOSA). This model is designed to identify representative authors of a A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 5 specific research topic within a heterogeneous, topic-insensitive academic network encompassing various topics. The model collects information from a few well-known experts on the target topic. TOSA initially learns high-order relationships among authors in a heterogeneous academic network by extracting topic-related information. It then constructs an embedding space that encapsulates the features of the collected authoritative experts and positions them close to each other. Finally, TOSA calculates a prototype based on the experts gathered in the embedding space and uses it to rank other unlabelled authors by assessing their closeness to the prototype. Thus, this model provides a refined approach to expert findings in academic networks specifically tailored to diverse and topic-sensitive contexts. Many international indicators exist for ranking and classifying researchers and scientists, such as the H-index, I10-index, G-Index, M-Index, Tori index (2012), Read10-index, and AD Scientific index. Tables 1 and 2 list some of these indicators and related international reports, respectively. Historical development of citation metrics The inception of the Highly Cited Researchers (HCR) index can be traced back to the work of Eugene Garfield, with foundational contributions in the mid-20th century (Garfield, 1955, 1957;Garfield and Malin, 1968;Somoza-Fern andez et al., 2018;Toom, 2018;Ramlal et al., 2021). Eugene Garfield, associated with the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), played a pivotal role in its formation, coinciding with the introduction of the Scientific Citation Index (SCI) during the 1960s. In 1955, Garfield submitted a paper to the American Chemical Society, anticipating the significance of citation indexing, published and recognised in a U.S. patent (Garfield, 1955, 1957). By 1968, Garfield and Malin (1968) delved into the predictability of Nobel Prizes through citation analysis. In 1970, Garfield (1970) outlined suggestions emphasising the utility of citation analysis in supporting research, particularly in identifying research capacity and tracking creators and their networks. In 2001, the ISI introduced the category of HCR, presenting it as a valuable resource for empowering researchers and scientists. This initiative aims to assist in identifying key individuals, departments, and laboratories that have significantly contributed to the advancement of science and technology in recent decades. Despite the commercial nature of the ISI at the time, the free accessibility of HCR and the relatively transparent operations of UNHCR seem to be unusual business practices. It is plausible that the ISI-designed HCR is a branding and marketing tool for its commercial products, such as WoS and Detailed Services. During the 1990s, the increasing recognition of the potential benefits of electronic access to digital records for research captivated a growing number of potential customers. The ISI journal IF has gained widespread use in evaluating research at individual and group levels, leading to a growing controversy (Seglen, 1997b). SimiTable 1 Relevant international indicators. Indicators Used by Description H-index WoS Scopus Google Scholar The H-index is a bibliometric indicator that measures the productivity and impact of a researcher’s work. The calculation of the H-index depends on the quantity of articles cited at least ‘h’times. To attain a substantial Hindex, an academician must publish many articles and accumulate many citations. I10-index Google Scholar The i10-index was created by Google Scholar as an index to rank author impact. It is the number of publications the researcher has written that have at least ten citations. G-Index Unused The G-index, created by Leo Egghe as a response to the H-index, is an author-level metric, which places greater weight on highly cited articles. M-Index Unused The M-index is the H-index divided by the number of years a scientist has been active. The M-index considers years since the first publication and is more relevant to an earlier career researcher than the H-index. Erdo  s number —−The Erdo  s number describes the ‘collaborative distance’between mathematician Paul Erdo  sand another person, as measured by authorship of mathematical papers. The same principle has been applied in other fields where a particular individual has collaborated with a large and broad number of peers. Tori index (2012) NASA ADS The Tori index is a bibliometric index that measures the performances of individual researchers and scholars attempting to reduce the impact of self-citations. The NASA ADS database freely releases the Tori index for any searchable scientist belonging to it. It is calculated through the reference lists of citing papers, excluding self-citations. Each citing paper’s contribution is normalised by considering the remaining references in the citing papers and the number of authors in the cited paper. In essence, the Tori index excludes citations involving any original authors. The Tori index of an author decreases as the researchers citing them uses more references (citations of other research papers) in their article. The Tori index accounts for different citation practices in various fields, enabling more accurate cross-field comparisons. Riq-index (2012) NASA ADS The research impact quotient (RIQ) is determined by taking the square root of the Tori index, dividing it by the period between the first and last publication, and multiplying the result by 1000. Read10-index (2005) NASA ADS The Read10 is the present readership rate calculated for all papers authored by an individual within the most recent ten years, and this rate is normalised based on the number of authors involved. AD Scientific index based on: 1. I10-index 2. H-index 3. Citations scores The value ratio obtained in the last five years to the total value of the I10-index, Hindex, and Citations scores. AD Scientific index Ltd. It shows scientists’total productivity coefficients and the last five years based on the H-index and i10 index scores and citations in Google Scholar. It provides the ranking and assessment of scientists in academic subjects and branches in 14,120 universities, 215 countries, regions, and the world. It provides both the ranking and analysis results. Z-score Times Higher Education, THE A new science metric system (SMS) that considers the current IF, the total number of citations of the journal in which the article is published, and the author’s contribution to the scientific article (Zerem, 2017). By considering all three parameters, Zerem (2017) argues that the proposed criteria greatly remedy significant discrepancies in evaluating the scientific productivity of individual authors and institutions. A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 6 larly, citation analysis has gained popularity for research project evaluation and other studies but has also become a subject of debate (MacRoberts, 1996). By investing in HCR, the ISI could cultivate close relationships with a select group of influential researchers who had the potential to positively impact their local institutions and were inclined to utilise ISI data products. The identification and recognition of researchers contributing to the index of ‘the world’s longest-running scholarly literature’aligned with ISI’s corporate mission. It enriched its position by offering crucial sources for citation navigation in the knowledge network. The selection of researchers for inclusion in the HCR was based on the total number of citations in their indexed articles published and cited within specific timeframes (1981−1999 for the first HCR list, 1983−2002 for the second, 1984 −2003 for the third, and onwards) and across 21 broad categories of research. The categorisation of research for an individual article is influenced by its appearance in a particular journal that forms part of a‘journal group’encompassing publications in that specificfield (Ramlal et al., 2021;Somoza-Fern andez et al., 2018;Toom, 2018). In bibliometrics, the H-index is based on the number of publications and citations in those publications and is an important metric used to assess the quality, impact, and relevance of an individual work (Bar-Ilan et al., 2007,2008;Honavar and Bansal, 2022;Usman et al., 2021). Researchers have demonstrated the use and significance of H-index measures while calculating the ranking of authors, universities, and impact of journals (Bornmann and Daniel, 2009;Costas and Bordons, 2007;Torres-Salinas et al., 2009;Vieira and Gomes, 2009;Zerem et al., 2021). Donisky et al. (2019) assess author bias and performance across a set of citations; however, they find no significant differences between the globalised and averaged variables based on citations. Various approaches have been used in the literature to analyse author orders. The authors have also used a pagination algorithm on author-shared citation networks to rank authors (Ding et al., 2009;Dunaiski et al., 2016,2018;Nykl et al., 2015). Othman et al. (2022) analyse various evaluation criteria, such as H-index, citations, publication index, R-index, and e-index, to assess authors’ratings based on the number of Monash University publications from Scopus and WoS. University academic rankings and evaluation criteria The emergence of university academic rankings within and across national education systems is essential in comparative analyses of higher education. The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU or Shanghai Ranking) has become influential in the media, education policy communities, and prospective students; however, many critics hesitate to use it for analysis and improvement. This reluctance is partly due to the view that his results cannot be reproduced. The ARWU evaluates each university based on possessing Nobel Prizes, field medals, highly cited researchers, and papers published in prestigious journals such as Nature and Science. It also considers universities with many papers indexed by the SSCI and the SCIE. The ranking encompasses over 1800 universities, and the top 1000 are published utilising the indicators outlined in Table 3 (Shanghai Ranking, 2018). The first indicator, Alumni, holds a 10 per cent weight and quantifies the total number of an institution’s alumni who have been awarded Nobel Prizes and Field Medals (see Table 3 for details). Evaluation metrics and platforms in academic research Alumni encompass individuals who have attained a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree from an institution. The second metric, ‘award’, carries a 20 per cent weight and quantifies the total number of staff at an institution who have received Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Table 2 Relevant international reports. Report/List Issued by Description Highly Cited Researchers WoS The Highly Cited ResearchersTM list from ClarivateTM identifies scientists and social scientists who have demonstrated significant influence through the publication of multiple highly cited papers during the last decade. World Scientist and University Rankings AD Scientific index Ltd. The AD Scientific index (Alper-Doger Scientific Index) is a comprehensive ranking and analytical system that assesses individual scientists based on their scientific performance and the added value of their productivity. Additionally, it offers rankings for institutions by evaluating the scientific attributes of their affiliated scientists. The World’s Top 2% Scientists ranking Stanford University This ranking, considered the most prestigious worldwide, is based on the bibliometric information in the Scopus database and includes more than 180,000 researchers from the more than 8 million scientists considered active worldwide, with 22 scientificfields and 176 subfields considered. Best Scientists in the World Ranking (Top Scientists ranking) Research.com, a leading academic platform for researchers and ranking of top scientists The AD Scientific index relies on data gathered from the Microsoft Academic Graph. The ranking positions are determined by a scientist’s overall H-index, encompassing leading scientists across various scientific disciplines worldwide. The ranking process thoroughly evaluates scientists using Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Graph information. Criteria for inclusion in the global ranking consider the H-index, the proportion of contributions within the specific discipline, and the scholars’awards and achievements. Only the top 1000 scientists with the highest H-index are highlighted in the ranking. ‘The Hot List’ranking of top climate scientists Thomson Reuters ‘The Hot List’identifies and ranks climate academics according to how influential they are, exploring their research and how their work influences other scientists and the public, activists, and political leaders. Table 3 Indicators and weights for Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic Ranking of World Universities Ranking (ARWU). Criteria Indicator Code Weight Quality of education Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Alumni 10% Quality of teaching staff Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Award 20% Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories HiCi 20% Research output Papers published in Nature and Science* N&S 20% Papers indexed in SCIE and SSCI PUB 20% Per capita performance Per capita academic performance of an institution PCP 10% Total 100% *Note that institutions specialising in Humanities and Social Sciences, such as the London School of Economics, do not consider indicators for papers published in Nature and Science (N&S). Instead, the weight assigned to N&S is redistributed among the other indicators in the evaluation process. A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 7 Physics, Economics, and Medicine, as well as Fields Medals in Mathematics. Staff members are employed by an institution when it receives a prize. The third criterion, ‘HiCi’, holds a 20 per cent weight and assesses the count of highly cited researchers designated by Clarivate Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters). Clarivate Analytics operates subscription-based services focusing on analytics, including academic and scientific research, biotechnology, pharmaceutical intelligence, and patent intelligence. The company currently oversees the WoS, the largest subscription-based scientific citation indexing service, initially established by the ISI. The WoS integrates a Core Collection with patent data, regional citation indices, a research data index, and specialised subject indices (Clarivate Analytics, 2022). The inclusion of journals in the WoS Core Collection is contingent upon meeting the impact criteria alongside other general criteria, such as comparative citation analysis, content significance, author citation analysis, and editorial board members’citation analysis. The fourth indicator, ‘N&S’, carries a 20 per cent weight and gauges the number of papers published in Nature and Science from 2012 to 2016. The fifth metric, ‘PUB’, also weighing 20 per cent, assesses the total number of papers indexed in the SSCI and SCIE in 2016, only considering the publication type ‘articles’. Lastly, the sixth criterion, ‘PCP’, holds a 10 per cent weight. This weight is calculated by dividing the weighted scores of the five indicators mentioned above by the number of full-time equivalent academic staff members. If the number of academic staff for institutions is unavailable, the weighted scores of the five indicators alone are used (Shanghai Ranking, 2018). The increasing number of channels, indices, metrics, publications, and influences underscores the need for adequate literacy in the research domain. This literacy has become indispensable for researchers in various roles, such as authors, investigators, and educators. In a landscape where information is burgeoning, researchers must possess the knowledge to formulate effective strategies and judiciously navigate their scientific output, ensuring the dissemination of research findings. This requirement pertains not only to the research itself but also to the publication of research outcomes. WoS, an extensive science information platform presented by Thomson Reuters (recently acquired by Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia in October), is a pivotal resource for consulting the ISI databases. Its primary function extends beyond furnishing full text or abstracts, although references to these may be available. WoS provides analytical tools crucial for evaluating publications’scientific merits. The platform encompasses three key databases: the SCIE, SSCI, and AHCI. The latter was incorporated in 2015 into the Emerging Source Citation Index (ESCI). Scopus is the predominant database of bibliographic references, complete with abstracts and citations derived from peer-reviewed scientific literature. The Scopus platform offers comprehensive data access by searching, discovering, and analysing various functionalities. This feature facilitates exploration through documents, authors, and other advanced search options. The discovery tool empowers users to identify collaborators, delve into research organisations based on research output, and unearth-related publication data using diverse metrics such as author keywords and shared references. The analysis option effectively tracks citations and evaluates search results based on criteria, such as distribution by country, affiliation, and research area. When researchers download data from the Scopus database, they typically obtain information across 43 fields, encompassing details such as the abbreviated source title, abstract, author keywords, source title (journal of publication), and document type. Those interested may refer to Baas et al. (2020) and Toom (2018) for a more in-depth understanding of the Scopus database. Hence, databases such as Scopus and WoS have become imperative for searching, discovering, and referencing pivotal scientific publications across diverse fields of knowledge. Publishing in journals indexed in Scopus or the WoS and securing the author’s presence in these databases ensures the broad and necessary dissemination of scientific production. This dissemination targets a wide audience, including researchers, libraries, universities, students, and professors seeking to stay abreast of developments in their areas of interest. Consequently, these databases are indispensable tools for researchers, aiding them in accessing current and pertinent bibliographies, establishing their identity as authors, and acting as a reference source for research in their published journals (Singh, 2021). Using these databases yields benefits for all pertinent stakeholders, including publications, institutions, and authors. These benefits can be quantified by using various indicators and progress metrics. Web of Science WoS is the oldest among the three scholarly databases. Originally conceived by Eugene Garfield of the ISI in 1964, it began as the SCI, encompassing 700 journals, primarily serving as a citation index. Over time, its expansion led to new citation indices, including the SSCI in 1973, the AHCI in 1978, and the Book Citation Index (BKCI) in 2011. The amalgamation of the SCI, SSCI, and AHCI culminated in the launch of the WoS on the World Wide Web in 1997. In 2015, the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) was introduced to offer early visibility to titles under evaluation for inclusion in the classical indices of SCIE, SSCI, and AHCI (Ramlal et al., 2021;Somoza-Fern andez et al., 2018;Toom, 2018). WoS provides a comprehensive set of indicators for journals and researchers. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) are a renowned quality indicator and are highly regarded by agencies that evaluate research activities. InCites is a citation-based assessment tool that facilitates the comparison of scholarly productivity, making it particularly useful for academic and government officials analysing institutional productivity. Basic Science Indicators (ESI) within the ISI WoS enable measuring science performance and tracking research trends. ResearcherID, offered by Thomson Reuters, provides a solution for creating an author profile with a unique identifier, thus mitigating redundancy and coincidences that may weaken the identity of authors sharing the same name and last name. Scopus Established in 2004, the Scopus database, created by Elsevier, is widely recognised as one of the largest curated databases encompassing scientific journals, books, conference proceedings, and so on. Content selection is undertaken meticulously, including content selection and continuous re-evaluation, led by a Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB). At its launch, Scopus contained approximately 27 million publication records from 1966 to 2004 (Toom, 2018). Scopus offers a set of indicators for both journals and researchers, featuring innovations. One is the CiteScore, a dynamic Elsevier index that calculates the average number of citations from a publication each year relative to the average citations in the preceding three years. Unlike the Annual update of the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor, the CiteScore is updated monthly. Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) provides journal rankings based on reputation, determined by the number of citations adjusted to the number of documents published. Source-normalised impact per paper (SNIP) gauges citation impact by considering the characteristics of the field of knowledge. The H-index is an average that combines the number of citations and publications for an author gaining prominence in research evaluation systems. Scopus Identifier assigns a unique identification number to each author in Scopus, enabling clear author identification without concerns of confusion arising from shared full and last names among different authors. Dimensions Dimensions, introduced in 2018, is the most recent addition to the three scholarly databases. Positioned as a comprehensive research data platform, Dimensions integrates information on awarded grants, A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 8 The IRM contains one for (i, j) and one for (j, i) for the corresponding X in the SSIM. The IRM contains zero for (i, j) and zero for (j, i) for the corresponding O in the SSIM. Subsequently, the FRM was developed from the IRM by employing the transitivity principle, as illustrated in Tables 8 and 9. This process is detailed in Step 3 of the methodology section. Step 4: We analysed each procedure’s reachability and antecedent sets in determining the levels. A procedure’s reachability set (R(Pi)) encompasses the procedure itself and any others it may influence. Conversely, the antecedent set (A(Pi)) included the procedure and other factors that may contribute to its achievement. We then calculated the intersection (R(Pi)\A(Pi)) of these sets for all Procedures. Procedures with identical reachability and intersection sets are placed at the highest level in the ISM hierarchy. Table 10 displays each procedure along with its reachability set, antecedent set, and the corresponding levels identified in the initial iteration. After determining the top level, procedures at this level were excluded from subsequent iterations. This process was repeated to identify the next level and continues until each procedure is assigned a level. Four iterations were performed (see Appendices 1, 2, and 3). Table 10 lists the final assigned levels of the procedures. Step 5: In this study, we examined the FRM and calculated the summation of its rows and columns to determine each element’s driving and dependence powers, as listed in Table 8. Subsequently, we created the MICMAC analysis graph shown in Fig. 5. This graph was a foundational tool to systematically categorise all ten selected procedures into four sets. Actually, in Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), the concepts of driving power and dependence power are essential for analysing the influence and interdependence of elements within a system (Dwivedi et al., 2019). These measures are calculated based on the Final Reachability Matrix (FRM), which is developed from the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through a series of steps (Jharkharia and Shankar, 2005). The SSIM is developed first, where each variable is compared with every other variable to determine their relationships. This is typically done through expert judgment or data analysis. The relationships are marked with symbols like V (variable i will lead to variable j), A (variable j will lead to variable i), X (both variables influence each other), and O (no direct relationship) (Attri et al., 2013). Transitivity is a key principle in ISM. If variable A influences variable B, and variable B influences variable C, then variable A should Table 8 Initial reachability matrix for SRCM procedures. Procedure P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P1 1110111001 P2 1110111001 P3 1111111001 P4 0011111001 P5 1011111001 P6 0000011101 P7 0000011111 P8 0000000111 P9 0000001111 P10 0000000001 Table 10 First iteration process of SRCM procedures. Element P(i) Reachability Set R(Pi) Antecedent Set: A(Pi) Intersection R(Pi) & A(Pi) Level 1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 5 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 6 6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9 6,7,9 7 6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 6,7,8,9 8 7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 7,8,9 9 6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 6,7,8,9 10 10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 10 I Table 9 Final reachability matrix for SRCM procedures. Procedure P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 P2 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 P3 11111111*1*1 P4 1*1*111111*1*1 P5 11*111111*1*1 P6 000001111*1 P7 0000011111 P8 0000001*111 P9 000001*1111 P10 0000000001 A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 15 influence variable C. This principle is applied to the IRM to obtain the Final Reachability Matrix (FRM). This is done by checking and updating the matrix iteratively for transitive relations (Attri et al., 2013; Sage, 1977;Warfield, 1974). Once the FRM is established, for each element (variable), driving power is calculated by summing up the values in its row in the FRM. This sum indicates how many other elements a particular element influences. A higher sum indicates a greater driving power, meaning the element has significant influence over other elements (Obi et al., 2020). Likewise, dependence power is calculated by summing up the values in its column in the FRM. This sum represents how many elements influence the particular element. A higher sum indicates higher dependence, showing that the element is significantly influenced by other elements (Obi et al., 2020). (1) Autonomous Procedures: This group of procedures is characterised by weak driving and dependence power, indicating their relative disconnection from the overall system. The absence of autonomous procedures in our selection suggests that each procedure significantly impacts the SRCM. (2) Dependent Procedures: This set of procedures is characterised by weak driving power yet strong dependence, placing them at higher levels of importance within the ISM-based hierarchical model. Two procedures fall into the dependent set: Procedure 8: ‘Recommending values of grant for each class member for doing their research’and Procedure 10:‘Enhancing the recommendation system using the feedbacks form evaluation system’. The pronounced dependence on these procedures suggests that they rely on all the other procedures to maintain their effectiveness in developing SRCM. Their significance is underscored by this strong dependence. Hence, universities should pay attention to all other procedures to accomplish the dependent set of procedures and effectively manage the development of SRCM. (3) Linkage Procedures: This set of procedures is distinguished by strong driving and dependence powers; however, they are positioned at comparatively lower levels of importance within the ISM-based hierarchical model. In this study, three procedures fall under the linkage set: Procedure 6:‘Constructing the members of classified classes, A, B, and C’;Procedure 7:‘Recommending collaboration research strategies among three classes A, B, and C’, and Procedure 9:‘Evaluating the outcomes of all classes’members and collaboration research groups by using certain indicators’. Being part of this category, these procedures are notable for their instability, as any action taken on these procedures will impact others and have a feedback effect on themselves. Consequently, it is crucial to monitor these procedures at each stage of the process or to consider their omissions. (4) Independent Procedures: This set of procedures is marked by a strong driving power and weak dependence power, forming the cornerstone of the ISM-based hierarchical model. In this analysis, five procedures are included in this category: Procedure 1: ‘Determining the input data sources’;Procedure 2:‘Collecting the scientists & researchers lists in a university’;Procedure 3:‘Constructing the profiles of scientists & researchers in a university using data mining models’;Procedure 4:‘Creating New Scoring System with evaluating scientists & researchers in a university’, and Procedure 5:‘Ranking and classifying scientists & researchers in a university using deep learning models’. Practitioners or policymakers must focus on these driving procedures, or ‘key procedures’, to achieve the intended goals. Procedures with strong driving power can significantly influence other procedures. Therefore, prioritising this procedure is crucial. Step 6: To develop the ISM-based hierarchical model, we utilised data from the FRM (as illustrated in Table 10) and the final levels of the procedures (outlined in Table 11). This approach enabled us to construct a hierarchical structural model that clearly depicted the interrelationships among the procedures. The resulting ISM-based hierarchical model that visually represents these connections is shown in Fig. 6. Discussion The developed model illustrates the interconnectedness of various procedures in forming SRCM. The absence of autonomous procedures in this study suggests a high degree of interdependence among all procedures, contributing to the complexity of the SRCM development. This absence is likely due to the study’s emphasis on crucial procedures, although there may be other less critical procedures. Fig. 5. MICMAC analysis of SRCM procedures. Table 11 Levels of SRCM procedures. S. No. Level SRCM Procedure 1 Level 1 Enhancing the recommendation system using the feedback from the evaluation system 2 Level 2 Recommending collaboration research strategies among three classes: A, B, and C Recommending values of grant for each class member for doing their research Evaluating the outcomes of all classes’members and collaboration research groups by using specific indicators 3 Level 3 Constructing the members of classified classes A, B, and C 4 Level 4 Determining the input data sources Collecting the scientists & researchers lists in a university Constructing the profiles of scientists & researchers in a university using data mining models Creating a New Scoring System by evaluating scientists & researchers in a university Ranking and classifying scientists & researchers in a university using deep learning models A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 16 Independent procedures possessing significant driving power are Procedure 1:‘Determining the input data sources’;Procedure 2: ‘Collecting the scientists & researchers lists in a university’;Procedure 3:‘Constructing the profiles of scientists & researchers in a university using data mining models’;Procedure 4:‘Creating New Scoring System with evaluating scientists & researchers in a university’, and Procedure 5:‘Ranking and classifying scientists & researchers in a university using deep learning models’. The dependent category includes two procedures: Procedure 8:‘Recommending values of grant for each class member for doing their research’and Procedure 10:‘Enhancing the recommendation system using the feedback form evaluation system’, as shown in Fig. 5. Five procedures were listed in level four, and all of them were placed in the independent categories: Procedure 1:‘Determining the input data sources’;Procedure 2:‘Collecting the scientists & researchers lists in a university’;Procedure 3:‘Constructing the profilesofscientists&researchersinauniversityusingdatamining models’;Procedure 4:‘Creating New Scoring System with evaluating scientists & researchers in a university’,andProcedure 5:‘Ranking and classifying scientists & researchers in a university using deep learning models’.Thesefive procedures are vital initial steps in effectively developing SRCM for university scientists and should be prioritised. These steps have been endorsed by Baas et al. (2019), Birkle et al. (2020),Meho and Yang (2007),andVisser et al. (2021), highlighting the need for credible data sources for SRCM development. Accurate and reliable data sources are crucial for ensuring the validity of the model’s outcomes. SRCM development involves intricate data, including publication metrics and academic contributions, and the integrity of the data is paramount for the model’s success. The foundational procedures ‘Determining the input data sources’ and ‘Collecting the scientists & researchers lists in a university’lay the groundwork for further stages like ‘Constructing the profiles of scientists & researchers in a university using data mining models’, ‘Creating New Scoring System with evaluating scientists & researchers in a university’, and ‘Ranking and classifying scientists & researchers in a university using deep learning models’. These steps are crucial for the successful development of the SRCM. Data mining models offer higher accuracy and efficiency in profile construction, as evidenced by Amjad et al. (2018),Cui et al. (2023),Duan et al. (2019), Dwivedi et al. (2021,2023), Obreja et al. (2024),Usman et al. (2021), Xin et al. (2022), underlining the effectiveness of these techniques in academic contexts. Implementing deep learning models for ranking and classification is also a sophisticated approach for data interpretation, following the initial data source identification and compilation of academic personnel lists. These models are adept at handling intricate datasets and revealing subtle patterns and connections. Deep learning bridges the gap between basic data collection and advanced analyses. This technology aids in transitioning from elementary data collection to complex algorithm-based categorisation, which is crucial for establishing the specified classes A, B, and C. This approach is supported by various studies, including Amjad et al. (2018),Daud et al. (2020),Ding et al. (2009),Dorogovtsev and Mendes (2015),Dunaiski et al. (2018), Honavar and Bansal (2022), and Torres-Salinas et al. (2009). Creating a new scoring system is essential for bridging the gap between data collection and its application, as it standardises the evaluation of collected data, which is crucial for the objective assessment and categorisation of scientists and researchers, as noted in studies by Kumar and Panda (2022) and Usman et al. (2021). Research has shown that the process of utilising deep learning models to rank and classify scientists and researchers within a university plays a pivotal role in connecting the initial steps of ‘identifying the input data sources, collecting the scientists and researchers lists in a university, constructing the profiles of scientists and researchers at a university using data mining models, creating a new scoring system with evaluating scientists and researchers in a university with the third-level procedure, and gathering the members of classified classes A, B, and C’. The subsequent crucial step (third level) in SRCM development is Procedure 6:‘Gathering the members of classified classes A, B, and C’, supported by studies like those of Kumar and Panda (2022) and Usman et al. (2021). Gathering comprehensive lists enables a deeper understanding of the academic landscape and is essential for the later stages of SRCM, such as data analysis and classification. In other words, this procedure is critical to successfully attain three other procedures in Level 2: Procedure 7:‘Recommending collaboration research strategies among three classes A, B, and C’;Procedure 8: ‘Recommending values of grant for each class members for doing their research’, and Procedure 9:‘Evaluating the outcomes of all classes’members and collaboration research groups by using certain indicators’. Fig. 6. Framed - ISM model. A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 17 The construction of these classes lays the groundwork for implementing the related second-level procedures. Clearly defining and establishing classes A, B, and C members sets the stage for tailored strategies and initiatives specific to each group. Accordingly, once the classes are constructed, it becomes feasible to recommend collaborative research strategies and allocate grants effectively. This is because each class’s needs, capabilities, and research focus can be identified clearly, allowing for more strategic and beneficial collaborations and funding distribution. The outcomes of research and collaboration are more manageable and accurate with well-defined classes. Specific indicators can be developed for each class, allowing for a nuanced assessment of their performance and impact. The success of SRCM hinges on accurately categorising scientists and researchers. This categorisation not only aids in structuring the model but also ensures that subsequent recommendations and evaluations are based on a solid and relevant understanding of the university’s academic landscape (Amjad et al., 2015; Baas et al., 2019; Honavar and Bansal, 2022; Kumar and Panda, 2022;Usman et al., 2021;Zerem, 2017; Zerem et al., 2021). By recommending specific collaboration strategies for classes A, B, and C, the university can foster synergistic relationships uniquely suited to the strengths and needs of each group. This targeted approach will likely yield more productive and impactful research collaborations, which is essential for refining the overall recommendation system. Mending grant values for each class member also ensures that resources are allocated effectively based on different research groups’specific needs and potential. This optimised distribution of funds is critical for driving successful research outcomes, which, in turn, enhances the recommendation system at Level 1. Furthermore, evaluating the outcomes of each class and their collaborative efforts using specific indicators provides valuable data on what works well and where improvements are required. This informed evaluation is the key to enhancing the recommendation system at the apex of the hierarchical model, as it allows for adjustments based on actual performance and outcomes. The data and insights gained from these Level 2 procedures serve as a robust feedback mechanism for the recommendation system at Level 1. Continuous feedback ensures that the SRCM remains dynamic, responsive, and increasingly effective (Bornmann, 2017;Gadd, 2021; Honavar and Bansal, 2022; Othman et al., 2022). Theoretical contributions Given the absence of a solid and comprehensive SRCM in the literature, this study went further by proposing and validating the proposed model. In other words, this study has provided original value by building a framework that helps academic institutions and universities comprehend and map interdependencies within academic settings. Considering the absence of autonomous procedures, as explained in the Analysis and Results section, and the interconnected nature of various tasks, SRCM highlights the complex and interconnected nature of academic processes, which challenges traditional linear models of academic administration and research management. By illustrating the interconnectedness of various procedures, the SRCM provides a new framework for understanding how different tasks and processes within academic settings are interrelated. This helps in comprehending the holistic nature of academic administration, which is often overlooked in traditional models. The SRCM makes another considerable contribution by providing a hierarchical method for classifying and placing procedures in the academic sector. The theoretical value of SRCM is related to a novel mechanism for conceptualising how diverse components within a university’s ecosystem, from data collection to deep learning-based classification, can be structured in a graduated structure. This mechanism adds a layer of complexity to how academic institutions can build, classify and appraise scientists and researchers. By integrating data mining and deep learning techniques, the SRCM introduces methodological innovations that enhance the accuracy and efficiency of academic evaluations. This methodological advancement provides a template for future research and applications in other domains of academic and administrative management. To build the proposed SRCM, the current study has followed sophisticated processes, such as data mining and deep learning, to rank and classify scientists and researchers, representing a significant theoretical advancement. Accordingly, this study proposes a novel shift towards more technologically driven methods in academic appraisal, moving away from traditional approaches to more sophisticated, algorithm-based systems. This integration provides a basis for future research on the efficacy and ethics of these technologies in the academic setting. Establishing a new scoring system and focusing on reliable data sources for developing SRCM add to the theoretical discourse on standardisation and objective evaluation in academic research. In details, by integrating data mining and deep learning techniques, the SRCM introduces methodological innovations that enhance the accuracy and efficiency of academic evaluations. This methodological advancement provides a template for future research and applications in other domains of academic and administrative management. Such a theoretical value is vital for managing the methodology adopted by academic institutions to develop more transparent, fair, and credible approaches for assessing academic contributions. Further, new theoretical insights are also captured by enhancing the feedback from the evaluation systems at the top of the hierarchy, which enhances the quality of recommendations proposed and provides insights to academic institutions regarding how they can continuously improve the evaluation and reward process. Practical implications Along with the theoretical values proposed above, this study also provides several practical guidelines and implications to help academic institutions develop more transparent, fair, and credible approaches to assessing academic contributions. First, academic institutions should prioritise vital databases and researcher profiles, structuring how data should be collected and analysed more hierarchically. This structured approach requires classifying and placing tasks and procedures to ensure the effective apportionment of resources and effort. Specifically, institutions should establish clear data collection protocols, ensuring that data is gathered consistently across all departments. This involves creating standardised templates and guidelines for data entry, ensuring accuracy and uniformity in the information collected (Tudor-Locke, 2016;Wilbanks et al., 2018). Additionally, the results of this study suggest that academic institutions should invest more resources and time into integrating emerging systems, such as data mining and deep learning technologies, for profiling and classifying researchers and scientists (Zhu et al., 2023). This integration would benefit from advanced training programs designed to empower staff members to efficiently manage and interpret complex datasets associated with academic research and performance. Training should focus on both the technical aspects of these technologies and their practical applications in academic settings. For instance, workshops and courses on data mining, machine learning algorithms, and the use of specialised software tools would be essential (Nguyen et al., 2019). Furthermore, training should also cover data privacy and ethical considerations to ensure responsible data handling practices (Thapa and Camtepe, 2021). Universities should also advance and apply standardised scoring systems to accurately assess the performance and contributions of scientists and researchers. This approach ensures that the SRCM system is transparent, credible, and adaptable to various academic disciplines and research areas. The development of these scoring systems should be guided by clear criteria that align with the institution’s strategic A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 18 goals, such as research output, teaching excellence, and community engagement. When formulating and suggesting initiatives at the collaborative strategic level, SRCM insights should be considered. Academic institutions are recommended to build systematic and accurate methods for grant distribution that align with the expectations and potential of different research classes, optimising the use of funds (H€ oyl€ a et al., 2016). This method requires establishing a transparent grant application process with well-defined evaluation criteria, ensuring that funds are allocated based on merit and strategic priorities. Furthermore, academic organisations should strengthen the feedback loop of evaluation systems and continuously develop systems for suggestions and other recommendations (Kelchen, 2017). This feedback mechanism should involve regular reviews and updates of evaluation criteria and processes, based on stakeholder input and changing academic landscapes. Attention must also be given to ethical issues related to data mining and deep learning to ensure privacy and fairness in assessment and classification processes. Institutions should build and share comprehensive policies and guidelines detailing the ethical implications of using smart systems in academic contexts. These policies should cover aspects such as informed consent, data anonymisation, and the mitigation of biases in data-driven decision-making (Ryan et al., 2020). The development of SRCM is not an end goal; its real value lies in the insights it provides. These insights are crucial for decisionmakers and strategists in academia and education, enabling them to develop and customise research and teaching programs to meet specific needs and goals. To harness the potential of data-driven decision-making processes within the SRCM context, universities must undertake a comprehensive approach to capacity building (Nguyen, 2016). This involves substantial investments in training and development programs designed to enhance staff and administrators’proficiency in interpreting and applying data insights to decision-making processes. Such programs should focus on both the technical aspects of data analysis and their strategic application in various academic and administrative scenarios. Additionally, fostering a collaborative environment that bridges gaps between administrative, academic, and IT departments is crucial for successfully implementing and maximising the benefits of SRCM (Sandberg et al., 2011). This collaboration can be facilitated through regular interdepartmental meetings, joint training sessions, and the establishment of cross-functional teams tasked with overseeing SRCM implementation and integration (Bishop, 1999). By creating synergy in which data insights are seamlessly integrated into institutional planning and operations, universities can achieve more informed, efficient, and effective decision-making that aligns with their overarching goals and objectives. This holistic approach ensures that SRCM supports not only the immediate needs of academic evaluation but also the long-term strategic objectives of the institution. Limitations and future research directions This study contributed significantly to the creation of the SRCM. This model has several advantages. Universities aid in developing robust research profiles and improving rankings. In addition, it provides valuable insights for researchers interested in relevant fields. However, several limitations must be addressed in future studies. For example, relying on modern technologies such as data mining and deep learning models represents a technical and cognitive addition, but at the same time, it is fraught with risks if the required human and technical skills and capabilities are not available. Therefore, future studies should examine the impact of intellectual and human competencies in using such smart systems and further elaborate on the key competencies needed to utilise such smart systems successfully. For example, researchers have defined and examined skill gaps in the use of modern technologies such as data mining and deep learning. This result will help in designing targeted training programmes and resources. Future research should account for the diverse needs unique to different specialisations and the distinct characteristics of various academic institutions. Therefore, developing a more adaptable template-based framework for the SRCM is essential. This framework should be designed for customisation, allowing it to be tailored to the specific nature of each specialisation. Additionally, it should be sufficiently flexible to meet the varying requirements of research and academic organisations. The current SRCM framework does not thoroughly address these ethical considerations. Therefore, future research should explore ethical and privacy-preserving methods for applying data mining and deep learning in academic contexts. Conclusion In conclusion, this study introduces the Scientists and Researchers Classification Model (SRCM), an innovative automated approach utilising data mining and machine-learning techniques to classify, rank, and evaluate scientists and researchers in university settings. Designed to cultivate an environment conducive to creativity, innovation, and collaboration among academics, SRCM aims to enhance universities’research capabilities and competitiveness. The model’s development roadmap, delineated across four pivotal stages, and structured implementation across three layers provide a comprehensive framework for its deployment. Through an extensive literature review and analysis using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), key procedures within SRCM were identified, highlighting their interdependence and complexity. Despite facing challenges related to data quality, ethical considerations, and adaptability, SRCM offers valuable insights for universities seeking to implement sophisticated datacentric classification models. For instance, by leveraging such models, universities can objectively assess faculty performance for promotion or tenure, fostering a culture of excellence and guiding faculty development initiatives. Declaration of competing interest None CRediT authorship contribution statement Amin Y. Noaman: Writing −review & editing, Writing −original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Ahmed A.A. Gad-Elrab: Writing − review & editing, Writing −original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Abdullah M. Baabdullah: Writing −review & editing, Writing − original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Appendix Invitation Subject: Invitation to Contribute to SRCM Development Dear Esteemed Colleagues, We appreciate your participation in completing the enclosed survey. Your insights are invaluable to the progression of the Scientists and Researchers Classification Model (SRCM). The study at hand seeks your expertise in refining the SRCM’s Procedures, ensuring they are both effective and enduring within the scholarly domain. Our survey’s intent is twofold: firstly, to pinpoint the most A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 19 pertinent Procedures for the SRCM, delving into their implications; and secondly, to investigate the relationships among these Procedures, ascertaining their roles within the model’s tiered framework. Your seasoned perspectives are sought after, and your contributions are anticipated to significantly shape the SRCM’s framework. Should you have inquiries regarding this survey or how we intend to utilise your responses, please reach out to [contact information not visible]. Rest assured, all information provided will remain strictly confidential and be applied solely for scholastic research objectives. Your participation will not lead to public disclosure of your identity. Your collaborative spirit is highly valued. Kind regards, Survey Questionnaire This questionnaire consists of three sections: Section A aims to collect general information about the respondents and their positions, academic level and work experience. Section B is designed to help selecting the most pertinent Procedures for the SRCM. Section C considers the contextual interactions between the selected Procedures as well as to investigate the relationships among these Procedures, ascertaining their roles within the model’s tiered framework. Section A: General Information Please answer the following multiple choice questions by circling only one answer for each: Demographic Profile Gender: Male Female Age: Less than 30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+ Academic/Research Position: Editor in Chief Associate Editor Editorial Review Board Member Advisory Board Member Highly Cited Researcher Vice President for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research or Equivalent Vice Dean for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research or Equivalent Director of Research Excellence Think Tank Director Dean of Scientific Research Vice Dean of Scientific Research Academic Level: Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Academic/Research Experience: 5 years or less 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years Section B: Significance of SRCM Procedures Please rate the significance of the following Procedures on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means ‘Not significant at all’and 5 means ‘Extremely significant’(five-point Likert scale). Tick one box only: Table A. Table 12 Significance of SRCM procedures. S. NO. Procedure Score 1 Determining the input data sources 2 Collecting the scientists & researchers lists in a university 3 Constructing the profiles of scientists & researchers in a university using data mining models 4 Creating a New Scoring System by evaluating scientists & researchers in a university 5 Ranking and classifying scientists & researchers in a university using deep learning models 6 Constructing the members of classified classes A, B, and C 7 Recommending collaboration research strategies among three classes: A, B, and C 8 Recommending values of grant for each class member for doing their research 9 Evaluating the outcomes of all classes’members and collaboration research groups by using specific indicators 10 Enhancing the recommendation system using the feedback from the evaluation system Section C: Contextual Relationships of SRCM Procedures The next step after finalising the key Procedures of SRCM is to identify the contextual relationships between the Procedures. To this end, an SSIM matrix has been constructed (Table B). Please indicate the direction of interaction between the Procedures by entering the following four symbols: V-Procedure i will influence Procedure j; A-Procedure j will influence Procedure i; X-Procedure i and j will influence each other; O-Procedure i and j are not related to each other. Table B Contextual relationships of SRCM procedures. Element P(i) Procedure 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Determining the input data sources 2 Collecting the scientists & researchers lists in a university ` 3 Constructing the profiles of scientists & researchers in a university using data mining models 4 Creating a New Scoring System by evaluating scientists & researchers in a university 5 Ranking and classifying scientists & researchers in a university using (continued) A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 20 Table B (Continued) Element P(i) Procedure 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 deep learning models 6 Constructing the members of classified classes A, B, and C 7 Recommending collaboration research strategies among three classes: A, B, and C 8 Recommending values of grant for each class member for doing their research 9 Evaluating the outcomes of all classes’members and collaboration research groups by using specific indicators 10 Enhancing the recommendation system using the feedback from the evaluation system Extracted Iterations Tables 14., 15., 16., 17. Table 14 Second iteration process of SRCM procedures. Element P(i) Reachability Set R(Pi) Antecedent Set: A(Pi) Intersection R(Pi) & A(Pi) Level 1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 5 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 6 6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9 6,7,9 7 6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 6,7,8,9 II 8 7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 7,8,9 II 9 6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 6,7,8,9 II Table 15 Third iteration process of SRCM procedures. Element P(i) Reachability Set R(Pi) Antecedent Set: A(Pi) Intersection R(Pi) & A(Pi) Level 1 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 2 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 3 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 4 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 5 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 6 6 1,2,3,4,5,6 6 III Table 16 Fourth iteration process of SRCM procedures. Element P(i) Reachability Set R(Pi) Antecedent Set: A(Pi) Intersection R(Pi) & A(Pi) Level 1 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 IV 2 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 IV 3 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 IV 4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 IV 5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 IV Table 17 Canonical matrix. Elements 10 7 8 9 6 1 2 3 4 5 Level Reachability Set: R(Pi) 10 10000000001 10 7 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 6,7,8,9,10 8 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7,8,9,10 9 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 6,7,8,9,10 6 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6,7,8,9,10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 References Abbott, A., Cyranoski, D., Jones, N., Maher, B., Schiermeier, Q., & Van Noorden, R. (2010). Do metrics matter? Many researchers believe that quantitative metrics determine who gets hired and who gets promoted at their institutions. With an exclusive poll and interviews, Nature probes to what extent metrics are really used that way. Nature, 465(7300), 860–863. Achi, A., Salinesi, C., & Viscusi, G. (2016). Innovation capacity and the role of information systems: A qualitative study. Journal of Management Analytics, 3(4), 333–360. Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1296–1302. Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. Sage Open, 9,(1) 2158244019829575. Amin, Al, M, Nabil, H, D., Baldacci, R., & Rahman, M. H (2023). Exploring blockchain implementation challenges for sustainable supply chains: An integrated fuzzy topsis−ISM approach. Sustainability, 15(18), 13891. Aliabadi, V., Ataei, P., & Gholamrezai, S. (2022). Identification of the relationships among the indicators of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems in agricultural startups. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7,(4) 100245. Althuwaynee, O. F., Pradhan, B., & Lee, S. (2016). A novel integrated model for assessing landslide susceptibility mapping using CHAID and AHP pair-wise comparison. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 37(5), 1190–1209. Amjad, T., Daud, A., & Akram, A. (2015). Mutual influence-based ranking of authors. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering & Technology, 34(S1), 103–112. Amjad, T., Daud, A., & Aljohani, N. R. (2018). Ranking authors in academic social networks: a survey. Library Hi Tech, 36(1), 97–128. Amjad, T., Daud, A., Che, D., & Akram, A. (2016). Muice: Mutual influence and citation exclusivity author rank. Information Processing & Management, 52(3), 374–386. Amjad, T., Rehmat, Y., Daud, A., & Abbasi, R. A. (2020). Scientific impact of an author and role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 122(2), 915–932. Amoah, G. B., & Minishi-Majanja, M. K. (2022). Key performance indicators (KPIs) in Ghanaian university libraries: Developing outcome-based metrics for staff performance. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 23(2), 41–52. Attri, R., Grover, S., Dev, N., & Kumar, D. (2013). An ISM approach for modelling the enablers in the implementation of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 4, 313–326. Aurup, G. M., & Akgunduz, A. (2012). Pair-wise preference comparisons using alphapeak frequencies. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 16(4), 3–18. Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., C^ ot e, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, highquality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1), 1–8. Bamel, U., Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., Bamel, N., & Meyer, N. (2022). Managing the dark side of digitalization in the future of work: A fuzzy TISM approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7,(4) 100275. Bansal, R., & Honavar, S. G. (2022). Know your worth!”−Author ranking indices. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology-Case Reports, 2(4), 873. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26–34. Bini, M., & Masserini, L. (2016). Students’satisfaction and teaching efficiency of university offer. Social Indicators Research, 129, 847–862. Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363–376. Bishop, S. K. (1999). Cross-functional project teams in functionally aligned organizations. Project Management Journal, 30(3), 6–12. Bornmann, L. (2017). Measuring impact in research evaluations: a thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. Higher Education, 73(5), 775–787. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). The state of h index research: Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Reports, 10(1), 2–6. Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1-7), 107–117. A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 21 Bu, Y., Wang, B., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Sugimoto, C. R., Huang, Y., & Huang, W. B. (2020). Considering author sequence in all-author co-citation analysis. Information Processing & Management, 57,(6) 102300. Buela-Casal, G., Guti errez-Martínez, O., Berm udez-S anchez, M. P., & Vadillo-Mu~ noz, O. (2007). Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, 71(3), 349–365. Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414–434. Charnley, S., Carothers, C., Satterfield, T., Levine, A., Poe, M. R., Norman, K., & Martin, K. S. (2017). Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy, 73,80–88. Christensen, M., Dyrstad, J. M., & Innstrand, S. T. (2020). Academic work engagement, resources and productivity: Empirical evidence with policy implications. Studies in Higher Education, 45(1), 86–99. Clarivate Analytics. (2022). Web of Science. Available at: https://clarivate.com/webofs ciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/ Accessed: 10.08.2022. Cornelius, K. E., Rosenberg, M. S., & Sandmel, K. N. (2020). Examining the impact of professional development and coaching on mentoring of novice special educators. Action in Teacher Education, 42(3), 253–270. Cort es, J. D., & Andrade, D. A. (2022). The Colombian scientific elite—Science mapping and a comparison with Nobel Prize laureates using a composite citation indicator. PLoS One, 17,(5) e0269116. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203. Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. MIT Press. Cronin, B., Snyder, H., & Atkins, H. (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: A study of sociology. Journal of Documentation, 53(3), 263–273. Cui, Y., Ma, Z., Wang, L., Yang, A., Liu, Q., Kong, S., & Wang, H. (2023). A survey on big data-enabled innovative online education systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8,(1) 100295. Daud,A.,Arabia,S.,Amjad,T.,Dawood,H.,&Chauhdary,S.H.(2020).Topicsensitive ranking of authors. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCIS), 196.Aljouf,KingdomofSaudi Arabia Oct 13-15. De Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565. Ding, Y., Yan, E., Frazho, A., & Caverlee, J. (2009). PageRank for ranking authors in cocitation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2229–2243. Dorogovtsev, S. N., & Mendes, J. F. (2015). Ranking scientists. Nature Physics, 11(11), 882–883. Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data−Evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48,63–71. Dunaiski, M., Geldenhuys, J., & Visser, W. (2018). Author ranking evaluation at scale. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 679–702. Dunaiski, M., Visser, W., & Geldenhuys, J. (2016). Evaluating paper and author ranking algorithms using impact and contribution awards. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 392–407. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Bhadeshia, H. K., Ananiadou, S., Cohn, A. G., Cole, J. M., & Wang, X. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) futures: India-UK collaborations emerging from the 4th Royal Society Yusuf Hamied workshop. International Journal of Information Management 102725. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., & Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994. Ergu, D., Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Shi, Y. (2011). A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 246–259. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. Fasi, M. A. (2023). Triple Helix Collaboration: Uncovering research opportunities among industry, academia, and researchers—A case study of Saudi Aramco’s patent portfolio analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–35. Gadd, E. (2021). Mis-measuring our universities: Why global university rankings don’t add up. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics (p. 57). Gao, C., Wang, Z., Li, X., Zhang, Z., & Zeng, W. (2016). PR-index: Using the h-index and PageRank for determining true impact. PLoS One, 11,(9) e0161755. Gao, X., Wu, S., Xia, D., & Xiong, H. (2022). Topic-sensitive expert finding based solely on heterogeneous academic networks. Expert Systems with Applications. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119241. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. Garfield, E. (1957). Breaking the subject index barrier-a citation index for chemical patents. J. Pat. Off. Soc’y, 39, 583. Garfield, E. (1970). Citation indexing for studying science. Nature, 227(5259), 669–671. Garfield, E., & Malin, M. V. (1968). Can Nobel Prize winners be predicted? 135th meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 166 December 2631. Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8–21. Gee, M., & Cooke, J. (2018). How do NHS organisations plan research capacity development? Strategies, strengths, and opportunities for improvement. BMC Health Services Research, 18,1–11. Goel, P., Mehta, S., Kumar, R., & Casta~ no, F. (2022). Sustainable Green Human Resource management practices in educational institutions: An interpretive structural modelling and analytic hierarchy process approach. Sustainability, 14(19), 12853. Gokak, A. J. H., Mehendale, S., & Bhale, S. M. (2023). Modelling and analysis for higher education shadow institutions in Indian context: an ISM approach. Quality & Quantity, 57(4), 3425–3451. Haleem, A., Luthra, S., Mannan, B., Khurana, S., Kumar, S., & Ahmad, S. (2016). Critical factors for the successful usage of fly ash in roads & bridges and embankments: Analyzing Indian perspective. Resources Policy, 49, 334–348. Harzing, A. W. (2019). Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics, 120(1), 341–349. Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. Herzog, C., Hook, D., & Konkiel, S. (2020). Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 387–395. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual’sscientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85(3), 741–754. Hook, D. W., Porter, S. J., & Herzog, C. (2018). Dimensions: Building context for search and evaluation. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3,23 . H€ oyl€ a, T., Bartneck, C., & Tiihonen, T. (2016). The consequences of competition: Simulating the effects of research grant allocation strategies. Scientometrics, 108, 263– 288. Jharkharia, S., & Shankar, R. (2005). IT-enablement of supply chains: Understanding the barriers. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(1), 11–27. Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Sharma, R. (2020). Modeling the blockchain enabled traceability in agriculture supply chain. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 101967. Kavic, M. S., & Satava, R. M. (2021). Scientific literature and evaluation metrics: Impact factor, usage metrics, and altmetrics. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 25(3), e2021. doi:10.4293/JSLS.2021.00010. Kelchen, R. (2017). Campus-based financial aid programs: Trends and alternative allocation strategies. Educational Policy, 31(4), 448–480. Keyser, D. J., Lakoski, J. M., Lara-Cinisomo, S., Schultz, D. J., Williams, V. L., Zellers, D. F., & Pincus, H. A. (2008). Advancing institutional efforts to support research mentorship: A conceptual framework and self-assessment tool. Academic Medicine, 83(3), 217–225. Kosmulski, M. (2020). Nobel laureates are not hot. Scientometrics, 123(1), 487–495. Kowarsch, M., Garard, J., Riousset, P., Lenzi, D., Dorsch, M. J., Knopf, B., & Edenhofer, O. (2016). Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning. Palgrave Communications, 2(1), 1–20. Kumar, R., & Goel, P. (2022). Exploring the domain of interpretive structural modelling (ISM) for sustainable future panorama: a bibliometric and content analysis. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 29(5), 2781–2810. Kumar, S., & Panda, A. (2022). Identifying influential nodes in weighted complex networks using an improved WVoteRank approach. Applied Intelligence, 52(2), 1838– 1852. Kumar, S., Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kumar, N., & Haleem, A. (2016). Barriers in green lean six sigma product development process: an ISM approach. Production Planning & Control, 27(7-8), 604–620. Kwiek, M. (2021). What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe: Changing national patterns in global contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2629–2649. Larivi ere, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Macaluso, B., Milojevi c, S., Cronin, B., & Thelwall, M. (2014). arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1157–1169. Lippi, G., & Mattiuzzi, C. (2017). Scientist impact factor (SIF): a new metric for improving scientists’evaluation? Annals of Translational Medicine, 5(15), 303. L€ u, L., Zhou, T., Zhang, Q. M., & Stanley, H. E. (2016). The H-index of a network node and its relation to degree and coreness. Nature Communications, 7(1), 1–7. Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2015). An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian perspective. Resources Policy, 46,37–50. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., & Mangla, S. K. (2017). Structural model for sustainable consumption and production adoption—A grey-DEMATEL based approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125, 198–207. Mangla, S., Madaan, J., & Chan, F. T. (2013). Analysis of flexible decision strategies for sustainability-focused green product recovery system. International Journal of Production Research, 51(11), 3428–3442. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado L opez-C ozar, E. (2018a). Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2175–2188. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & L opez-C ozar, E. D. (2018b). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. Mayr, P., & Walter, A. K. (2007). An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 31(6), 814–830. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versusScopusandGoogleScholar.Journal A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 22 of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105– 2125. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. Nguyen, G., Dlugolinsky, S., Bob ak, M., Tran, V., L opez García,  A., Heredia, I., & Hluch y, L. (2019). Machine learning and deep learning frameworks and libraries for large-scale data mining: A survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 52,77–124. Nguyen, T. H. (2016). Building human resources management capacity for university research: The case at four leading Vietnamese universities. Higher Education, 71(2), 231–251. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: A Handbook (pp. 97−146). Nykl, M., Campr, M., & Je zek, K. (2015). Author ranking based on personalized PageRank. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 777–799. Oberesch, E., & Groppe, S. (2017). The mf-index: A citation-based multiple factor index to evaluate and compare the output of scientists. Open Journal of Web Technologies (OJWT), 4(1), 1–32. Obi, L., Hampton, P., & Awuzie, B. (2020). Total interpretive structural modelling of graduate employability skills for the built environment sector. Education Sciences, 10(12), 369. Obreja, D. M., Rughiniș, R., & Rosner, D. (2024). Mapping the conceptual structure of innovation in artificial intelligence research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9,(1) 100465. O’Connell, B. T. (2022). ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’: university key performance indicators post COVID-19. Accounting Education, 31(6), 629–639. Othman, M., Basnan, N., Ahmad, A., & Salleh, M. F. M. (2022). The integrated reporting framework across public administration: A thematic review. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 7(1), 410–440. Pacheco, G., Figueira, P., Almeida, J. M., & Gon¸calves, M. A. (2016). Dissecting a scholar popularity ranking into different knowledge areas. International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (pp. 253−265). Cham: Springer. Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Stanford InfoLab. Ramlal, A., Ahmad, S., Kumar, L., Khan, F. N., & Chongtham, R. (2021). From molecules to patients: the clinical applications of biological databases and electronic health records. Translational Bioinformatics in Healthcare and Medicine (pp. 107−125). Academic Press. Rana, N. P., Barnard, D. J., Baabdullah, A. M., Rees, D., & Roderick, S. (2019). Exploring barriers of m-commerce adoption in SMEs in the UK: Developing a framework using ISM. International Journal of Information Management, 44, 141–153. Ryan, M., Antoniou, J., Brooks, L., Jiya, T., Macnish, K., & Stahl, B. (2020). The ethical balance of using smart information systems for promoting the United Nations’Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 12(12), 4826. Sage, A. P. (1977). Interpretive Structural Modelling: Methodology for Large Scale Systems. (pp. 91−164). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Sandberg, A., Pareto, L., & Arts, T. (2011). Agile collaborative research: Action principles for industry-academia collaboration. IEEE Software, 28(4), 74–83. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Bmj, 314(7079), 497. Senanayake, U., Piraveenan, M., & Zomaya, A. (2015). The pagerank-index: Going beyond citation counts in quantifying scientific impact of researchers. PloS one, 10, (8) e0134794. Shanghai World University Ranking. (2018). Academic Ranking of World Universities. Available at: http://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2018 Accessed: 09.06.2022. Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113–5142. Somoza-Fern andez, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M., & Urbano, C. (2018). Journal coverage of the emerging sources citation index. Learned Publishing, 31(3), 199–204. Stonehill, H. I. (1965). Science Citation Index: information retrieval by propinquity. Chemistry & Industry, 10, 416–417. Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivi ere, V. (2017). Altmetrics: Broadening impact or amplifying voices? ACS Central Science, 3(7), 674–676. Thapa, C., & Camtepe, S. (2021). Precision health data: Requirements, challenges and existing techniques for data security and privacy. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 129, 104130. Thwaites, T. (2014). Research metrics: Calling science to account. Nature, 511(7510), S57–S60. Toom, K. (2018). Chapter 10—Indicators. The European Research Management Handbook — Europe and Beyond (pp. 213−230) Andersen,J., Toom, K., Poli, S., Miller,P., Eds. Torres-Salinas, D., Lopez-C ozar, E., & Jim enez-Contreras, E. (2009). Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics, 80(3), 761–774. Tudor-Locke, C. (2016). Protocols for data collection, management and treatment. The Objective Monitoring of Physical Activity: Contributions of Accelerometry to Epidemiology, Exercise Science and Rehabilitation (pp. 113−132). Usman, M., Mustafa, G., & Afzal, M. T. (2021). Ranking of author assessment parameters using Logistic Regression. Scientometrics, 126(1), 335–353. Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465(7300), 864–866. Vieira, E., & Gomes, J. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81(2), 587–600. Visser, M. S., van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2019). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and Crossref. ISSI, 5, 2358–2369 Vol. Visser, M., van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20–41. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., & B€ orner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14– 26. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391. Warfield, J. N. (1974). Developing subsystem matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (1), 74–80. Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632–657. Wilbanks, B. A., Berner, E. S., Alexander, G. L., Azuero, A., Patrician, P. A., & Moss, J. A. (2018). The effect of data-entry template design and anesthesia provider workload on documentation accuracy, documentation efficiency, and user-satisfaction. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 118,29–35. Wilbers, S., & Brankovic, J. (2021). The emergence of university rankings: a historical‑sociological account. Higher Education, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s10734-02100776-7. Williamson, B., Bayne, S., & Shay, S. (2020). The datafication of teaching in Higher Education: Critical issues and perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 351– 365. Wilson-Wilde, L. (2018). The international development of forensic science standards —A review. Forensic Science International, 288,1–9. Xin, X., Shu-Jiang, Y., Nan, P., ChenXu, D., & Dan, L. (2022). Review on A big data-based innovative knowledge teaching evaluation system in universities. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7,(3) 100197. Xu, L. D. (2000). The contribution of systems science to information systems research. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 17(2), 105–116. Yu, S., Gao, L., Wang, Y. F., Gao, G., Zhou, C., & Gao, Z. Y. (2017). Weighted H-index for identifying influential spreaders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05272. Zerem, E. (2013). Right criteria for academia in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Lancet, 382 (9887), 128. Zerem, E. (2014). Academic community in a developing country: Bosnian realities. Med Glas (Zenica), 11(2), 248–251. Zerem, E. (2017). The ranking of scientists based on scientific publications assessment. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 75, 107–109. Zerem, E. (2018). The ranking of scientists. Journal of. Biomedicine Informatics, 79, 147– 148. Zerem, E., & Kunosi c, S. (2018). The ranking of scientists: Computational calculation of Z-score. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 81, 133–134. Zerem, E., Kunosi c, S., Im sirovi c, B., & Kurt cehaji c, A. (2021). Science metrics systems and academic promotion: Bosnian reality. Psychiatria Danubina, 33(suppl 3), 136– 142. Zhang, C., Liu, C., Yu, L., Zhang, Z. K., & Zhou, T. (2017). Identifying the academic rising stars via pairwise citation increment ranking. Asia-Pacific Web (APWeb) and WebAge Information Management (WAIM) Joint Conference on Web and Big Data (pp. 475 −483). Cham: Springer. Zhao, F., Zhang, Y., Lu, J., & Shai, O. (2019). Measuring academic influence using heterogeneous author-citation networks. Scientometrics, 118(3), 1119–1140. Zhu, Y., Cheng, J., Liu, Z., Cheng, Q., Zou, X., Xu, H., & Tao, F. (2023). Production logistics digital twins: Research profiling, application, challenges and opportunities. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 84, 102592. A.Y. Noaman, A.A.A. Gad-Elrab and A.M. Baabdullah Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100516 23