Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands

Research Policy

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 95-107

  Rinia, E J ^a   Van Leeuwen, Th N ^b   Van Vuren, H G ^a   Van Raan, A F J ^b  

^a FOM INSTITUTE DIFFER   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bibliometric indicator; Condensed matter physics; Peer review criteria

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002163425     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0048-7333(98)00026-2     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Anderson, R.C., Narin, F., McAllister, P., 1978. Publication ratings versus peer ratings of universities. J. Am. Soc. Info. Sci. 29, 91-103.
2. Bayer, A.E., Fulger, F.J., 1966. Some correlates of a citation measure of productivity in science. Sociol. Educ. 339, 381-390.
3. van den Beemt, F.C.H.D., van Raan, A.F.J., 1995. Evaluating research proposals. Nature 375, 272.
4. Chang, K.H., 1975, Evaluation and survey of a subfield of physics: magnetic resonance and relaxation studies in The Netherlands, FOM-Report No. 37175, Utrecht.
5. Cole, S., Rubin, L., Cole, J.R., 1978, Peer Review in the National Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
6. Daniel, H.-D. (1993), Guardians of science: fairness and reliability of peer review, VCH, Weinheim.
7. Garfield, E., 1979, Citation Indexing - Its Theory and Applications in Science, Technology and Humanities, Wiley, New York.
8. Cole, S., Cole, J.R., 1967. Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. Am. Sociol. Rev. 32, 377-390.
9. van Els, W.P., Jansz, C.N.M., le Pair, C., 1989. The citation gap between printed and instrumental output of technological research: the case of the electron microscope. Scientometrics 17, 415-425.
10. Horrobin, D.F., 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. J. Am. Med. Ass. (JAMA) 263, 1438-1441.
11. Kostoff, R.N., 1995. Research requirements for research impact assessment. Res. Pol. 24, 869-882.
12. Korevaar, J.C., Moed, H.F., 1996. Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of mathematics. Scientometrics 37, 117-130.
13. van Leeuwen, Th.N., Rinia, J., van Raan, A.F.J., 1996, Bibliometrie Profiles of Academic Physics Research in The Netherlands, Report CWTS 96-09, Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden.
14. Martin, B.R., Irvine, J., 1981, Internal Criteria for Scientific Choice: An Evaluation of Research in High-Energy Physics Using Electron Accelerators, Minerva XIX, 408-432.
15. Martin, B.R., Irvine, J., 1983. Assessing basic research. Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Res. Pol. 12, 61-90.
16. Martin, B.R., 1996. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics 36, 343-362.
17. Moed, H.F., Burger, W.J.M., Frankfort, J.G., van Raan, A.F.J., 1985. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Res. Pol. 14, 131-149.
18. Moed, H.F., de Bruin, R.E., van Leeuwen, Th.N., 1995. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics 33, 381-422.
19. Moed, H.F., Hesselink, F.Th., 1996. The publication output and impact of academic chemistry research in the Netherlands during the 1980's: bibliometric analyses and policy implications. Res. Pol. 25, 819-836.
20. Narin, F., (1976), Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
21. NSF (1996), National Science Board and National Science Foundation Staff Task Force on Merit Review Discussion Report, NSB/MR-96-15, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
22. NSTC (1996), Assessing Fundamental Science: A Report from the Subcommittee on Research, National Science and Technology Council Committee on Fundamental Science, Washington, DC.
23. Nederhof, A.J., (1988), The Validity and Reliability of Evaluation of Scholarly Performance. In: van Raan, A.F.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam.
24. Nederhof, A.J., van Raan, A.F.J., 1987. Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: A comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics. Scientometrics 11, 333-350.
25. Nederhof, A.J., van Raan, A.F.J., 1989. A validation study of bibliometric indicators: The comparative performance of cum laude doctorates in chemistry. Scientometrics 17, 427-435.
26. le Pair, C., (1988), The citation gap of applicable science, In: van Raan, A.F.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, ISBN: 0-444-70537-6.
27. van Raan, A.F.J., van Leeuwen, T.N. (1995). A Decade of Astronomy Research in The Netherlands, Report CWTS 95-01, Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden.
28. van Raan, A.F.J., 1996. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics 36, 397-420.
29. Rinia, E.J., de Lange, C., 1991. The Dutch publication output in physics 1979-1988, FOM-Report No. 68726, Utrecht.
30. Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., Braun, T., 1989. Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields, 1981-1985. Scientometrics 16, 3-478.
31. Weinberg, A.M. (1963), Criteria for Scientific Choice, Minerva I, 159-171.