Abstract Purpose The adequacy of research performance of universities or research institutes have often been evaluated and understood in two axes: “quantity” (i.e. size or volume) and “quality” (i.e. what we define here as a measure of excellence that is considered theoretically independent of size or volume, such as clarity in diamond grading). The purpose of this article is, however, to introduce a third construct named “substantiality” (“ATSUMI” in Japanese) of research performance and to demonstrate its importance in evaluating/understanding research universities. Design/methodology/approach We take a two-step approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed construct by showing that (1) some characteristics of research universities are not well captured by the conventional constructs (“quantity” and “quality”)-based indicators, and (2) the “substantiality” indicators can capture them. Furthermore, by suggesting that “substantiality” indicators appear linked to the reputation that appeared in university reputation rankings by simple statistical analysis, we reveal additional benefits of the construct. Findings We propose a new construct named “substantiality” for measuring research performance. We show that indicators based on “substantiality” can capture important characteristics of research institutes. “Substantiality” indicators demonstrate their “predictive powers” on research reputation. Research limitations The concept of “substantiality” originated from IGO game; therefore the ease/difficulty of accepting the concept is culturally dependent. In other words, while it is easily accepted by people from Japan and other East Asian countries and regions, it might be difficult for researchers from other cultural regions to accept it. Practical implications There is no simple solution to the challenge of evaluating research universities’ research performance. It is vital to combine different types of indicators to understand the excellence of research institutes. Substantiality indicators could be part of such a combination of indicators. Originality/value The authors propose a new construct named substantiality for measuring research performance. They show that indicators based on this construct can capture the important characteristics of research institutes.

中文翻译：

---

实质性：衡量大学研究绩效的卓越研究结构

摘要目的大学或研究机构的研究绩效的充分性通常在两个轴上进行评估和理解：“数量”（即规模或数量）和“质量”（即我们在此定义为理论上考虑的卓越衡量标准）与大小或体积无关，例如钻石分级中的净度）。然而，本文的目的是介绍研究绩效的第三个概念，称为“实质性”（日语中的“ATSUMI”），并证明其在评估/理解研究型大学中的重要性。设计/方法/方法 我们采用两步方法来证明所提出的结构的有效性，通过表明（1）研究型大学的一些特征没有被基于传统结构（“数量”和“质量”）的指标，以及（2）“实质性”指标可以捕捉到它们。此外，通过简单的统计分析，通过暗示“实质性”指标似乎与大学声誉排名中出现的声誉相关联，我们揭示了该结构的额外好处。结果 我们提出了一个名为“实质性”的新结构来衡量研究绩效。我们表明，基于“实质性”的指标可以捕捉研究机构的重要特征。“实质性”指标显示了它们对研究声誉的“预测能力”。研究局限 “实质性”的概念源于IGO游戏；因此，接受这个概念的难易程度取决于文化。也就是说，日本等东亚国家和地区的人容易接受，而其他文化地区的研究人员可能很难接受。实际意义 评估研究型大学的研究绩效这一挑战没有简单的解决方案。结合不同类型的指标来了解研究机构的卓越性至关重要。实质性指标可以是此类指标组合的一部分。独创性/价值 作者提出了一种新的结构，称为实质性，用于衡量研究绩效。他们表明，基于这种结构的指标可以捕捉研究机构的重要特征。