Abstract Purpose A key question when ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities. This paper presents a method for classifying the varying degrees of interdependency between academic hospitals and universities in the context of the Leiden Ranking. Design/methodology/approach Hospital nomenclatures vary worldwide to denote some form of collaboration with a university, however they do not correspond to universally standard definitions. Thus, rather than seeking a normative definition of academic hospitals, we propose a three-step workflow that aligns the university-hospital relationship with one of three general models: full integration of the hospital and the medical faculty into a single organization; health science centres in which hospitals and medical faculty remain separate entities albeit within the same governance structure; and structures in which universities and hospitals are separate entities which collaborate with one another. This classification system provides a standard through which publications which mention affiliations with academic hospitals can be better allocated. Findings In the paper we illustrate how the three-step workflow effectively translates the three above-mentioned models into two types of instrumental relationships for the assignation of publications: “associate” and “component”. When a hospital and a medical faculty are fully integrated or when a hospital is part of a health science centre, the relationship is classified as component. When a hospital follows the model of collaboration and support, the relationship is classified as associate. The compilation of data following these standards allows for a more uniform comparison between worldwide educational and research systems. Research limitations The workflow is resource intensive, depends heavily on the information provided by universities and hospitals, and is more challenging for languages that use non-Latin characters. Further, the application of the workflow demands a careful evaluation of different types of input which can result in ambiguity and makes it difficult to automatize. Practical implications Determining the type of affiliation an academic hospital has with a university can have a substantial impact on the publication counts for universities. This workflow can also aid in analysing collaborations among the two types of organizations. Originality/value The three-step workflow is a unique way to establish the type of relationship an academic hospital has with a university accounting for national and regional differences on nomenclature.

中文翻译：

---

三步工作流程：为文献计量目的分配学术医院附属机构的务实方法

摘要 目的 对大学进行排名的一个关键问题是附属医院的出版产出是否分配给大学。本文提出了一种在莱顿排名的背景下对学术医院和大学之间不同程度的相互依赖进行分类的方法。设计/方法/方法 医院命名法在世界范围内各不相同，以表示与大学的某种形式的合作，但它们并不符合普遍的标准定义。因此，我们没有寻求学术医院的规范定义，而是提出了一个三步工作流程，将大学-医院关系与三个通用模型之一保持一致：将医院和医学院完全整合为一个组织；健康科学中心，其中医院和医学院仍然是独立的实体，尽管在相同的治理结构内；以及大学和医院是相互合作的独立实体的结构。该分类系统提供了一个标准，通过该标准可以更好地分配提及与学术医院的隶属关系的出版物。调查结果 在本文中，我们说明了三步工作流程如何有效地将上述三个模型转换为两种类型的工具关系，用于分配出版物：“关联”和“组件”。当医院和医学院完全整合或当医院是健康科学中心的一部分时，这种关系被归类为组成部分。当医院遵循协作和支持模式时，这种关系被归类为关联关系。遵循这些标准的数据汇编允许在全球教育和研究系统之间进行更统一的比较。研究限制 工作流程是资源密集型的，严重依赖于大学和医院提供的信息，并且对于使用非拉丁字符的语言更具挑战性。此外，工作流程的应用需要仔细评估不同类型的输入，这可能会导致歧义并使其难以自动化。实际意义 确定学术医院与大学的隶属关系类型会对大学的出版物数量产生重大影响。此工作流程还可以帮助分析两种类型的组织之间的协作。原创性/价值 三步工作流程是建立学术型医院与大学之间的关系类型的独特方式，考虑到国家和地区在命名法上的差异。此工作流程还可以帮助分析两种类型的组织之间的协作。原创性/价值 三步工作流程是建立学术型医院与大学之间的关系类型的独特方式，考虑到国家和地区在命名法上的差异。此工作流程还可以帮助分析两种类型的组织之间的协作。原创性/价值 三步工作流程是建立学术型医院与大学之间的关系类型的独特方式，考虑到国家和地区在命名法上的差异。