Evaluating universities using simple scientometric research-output metrics: Total citation counts per university for a retrospective seven-year rolling sample

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 34, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 555-563

  Charlton, Bruce G ^a   Andras, Peter ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

EID: 38349016326     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234207X254413     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bishop, Matthew 2004. Essential Economics. London: Profile Books.
2. Bush, Vannevar 1945. As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101-108.
3. Butler, Linda 2007. Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 565-574.
4. Chariton, Bruce G 2006. Scientific life should be measured in seven year units. Medical Hypotheses, 66, 1051-1052.
5. Charlton, Bruce G 2007a. Why there should be more science Nobel Prizes and Laureates - and why proportionate credit should be awarded to institutions. Medical Hypotheses, 68, 471-473.
6. Charlton, Bruce G 2007b. Scientometric identification of elite 'revolutionary science' research institutions by analysis of trends in Nobel prizes 1947-2006. Medical Hypotheses, 68, 931-934.
7. Charlton, Bruce 2007c. Which are the best nations and institutions for revolutionary science 1987-2006? Analysis using a combined metric of Nobel prizes, Fields medals, Lasker awards and Turing awards (NFLT metric). Medical Hypotheses, 68, 1191-1194.
8. Charlton, Bruce and Peter Andras 2003. The Modernization Imperative. Exeter UK: Imprint Academic.
9. Chariton, Bruce and Peter Andras 2006a. Oxbridge versus the 'Ivy League': 30 year citation trends. Oxford Magazine, 255, 16-17.
10. Charlton, Bruce and Peter Andras 2006b. Best in the arts, catching-up in science - what is the best future for Oxford? Oxford Magazine, 256, 25-26.
11. de Solla Price, D J 1986. Little Science, Big Science: and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.
12. Garfield, Eugene 1977. Essays of an Information Scientist. Philadelphia PA: ISI Press).
13. HEFCE, Higher Education Funding Council for England 2007. Reform of Higher Education Research Assessment and Funding. Available at , last accessed 14 September 2007.
14. Higher Education Funding Councils 2007. rae2008 - Research Assessment Exercise. Available at , last accessed 14 September 2007.
15. Hull, David L 1988. Science as a Process. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
16. Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University 2005. Academic Ranking of World Universities 2005: Top 500 World Universities. Available at , last accessed 14 September 2007.
17. Kuhn, Thomas S 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
18. Leydesdorff, Loet 2005. The evaluation of research and the evolution of science indicators. Current Science, 89, 1510-1517.
19. Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social Systems. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Moed, Henk 2007. The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 575-583.
21. Mankiw, Gregory N 2003. Principles of Economics. Mason US: South Western College Publishers.
22. REPP, Research Evaluation and Policy Project 2005. Quantitative Indicators for Research Assessment. REPP Discussion Paper 05/1. Canberra: The Australian National University.
23. van Raan, Anthony F J 2005. Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62, 133-143.
24. Ziman, John 2000. Real Science. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.