Measuring scientific performance of public research units for strategic change

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 183-194

  Coccia, Mario ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN HISTORY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Public research institutes; Scientific performance; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 47149100495     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Agasisti T., and Dal Bianco A. Data envelopment analysis of the Italian university system: Theoretical issues and policy implications. International Journal of Business Performance Management 8 4 (2006) 344-367
2. Arrow K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson R.R. (Ed). The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (1962), Princeton University Press, Princeton
3. Ball R., and Wilkinson R. The use and abuse of performance indicators in UK higher education. Higher Education 27 (1994) 417-427
4. Braun T., and Glänzel W. Chemistry research in Eastern Central Europe (1992-1997): Facts and figures on publication output and citation impact for 13 countries. Scientometrics 49 2 (2000) 187-214
5. CNR Report (2004). Research results 2003, Budget 2004-2005. Roma: D'Anselmi editore, Hoepli.
6. Coccia M. A basic model for evaluating R&D performance: Theory and application in Italy. R&D Management 31 4 (2001) 453-464
7. Coccia M. Models for measuring the research performance and identifying the productivity of public research institutes. R&D Management 34 3 (2004) 267-280
8. Coccia M. Scientometric model for the assessment of the scientific research performance within the public institutes. Scientometrics 65 3 (2005) 97-311
9. Coccia M., and Rolfo S. How Research policy changes can affect the organization and productivity of public research institutes. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. Research and Practice 9 3 (2007) 215-233
10. Cooper W.W., Seiford L.M., and Tone K. Data Envelopment Analysis (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London
11. Crow M., and Bozeman B. Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research Technology Management 32 September-October (5) (1989) 30-31
12. Crow M., and Bozeman B. Limited by design. R&D Research units in the U.S. National Innovation System (1998), Columbia University Press, New York
13. Cruz-Castro, L. & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2006). Research evaluation in transition: Individual versus organisational assessment in Spain (Working paper). Unidad de Politicals Comparadad (CSIC), 06-12.
14. Egghe L., and Rousseau R. Infometric model for Hirsch index. Scientometrics 69 1 (2006) 121-129
15. Everitt B.S., and Dunn G. Applied multivariate data analysis (1991), Edward Arnold, London pp. 219-220
16. Geisler E. The metrics of science and technology (2000), Quorum Books, Westport/Connecticut/London
17. Gioia D.A., and Chittipeddi K. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12 6 (1991) 433-448
18. Gornitzka A., Kyvik S., and Larsen I.M. The bureaucratization of universities. Minerva 36 1 (1998) 21-47
19. Harris G., and Kaine G. The determinants of research performance: A study of Australian university economists. Higher Education 27 (1994) 191-201
20. In: Ingwersen P., and Larsen B. (Eds). Proceedings of the 10th International conference of the international society for scientometrics and infometrics (2005), Karolinska University Press, Stockholm, Sweden
21. Johnes G. Performance indicators in higher education: A survey of recent work. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 8 2 (1992) 19-34
22. Johnes G., and Taylor J. Performance indicators in higher education (1990), Open University Press, Buckingham
23. Krull W. The Max Planck experience of evaluation. Scientometrics 34 3 (1995) 441-450
24. Larédo, P. (2002). L'évaluation de la recherche en France: Éléments de cadrage. Présentation pour la session du Conseil scientifique du CNRS sur l'évaluation, 1-2. Juillet, Paris.
25. Laudel G. The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy 33 7 (2006) 489-504
26. Luwel M., Noyons C.M., and Moed F. Bibliometric assessment of research performance in Flanders: Policy background and implications. R&D Management 29 2 (1999) 133-141
27. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation (2005), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
28. In: Moed H.F., Glanzel W., and Schmoch U. (Eds). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (2004), Kluwer Academic, London
29. Neri F., and Rodgers J.R. Ranking australian economics departments by research productivity. The Economic Record 82 September (Special Issue) (2006) S74-S84
30. Rizzi D. L'efficienza dei dipartimenti dell'Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia via DEA e DFA. Economia Pubblica 3 (2001) 103-136
31. Rodgers J.R., and Valadkhani A. A multidimensional ranking of Australian Economics Departments. The Economic Record 82 March (256) (2006) 30-43
32. Sexton T.R. The methodology of data envelopment analysis. In: Silkman R.H. (Ed). Measuring efficiency: An assessment of data envelopment analysis (1986), Jossey Bass, San Francisco
33. Silvani A., Sirilli G., and Tuzi F. R&D evaluation in Italy: More needs to be done. Research Evaluation 14 3 (2005) 207-215
34. In: Torres-Salinas D., and Moed H.F. (Eds). Proceeding of ISSI 2007. CINDOC-CSIC, Madrid, Spain (2007)
35. In: Van Raan A.F.J. (Ed). Handbook on science and technology indicators (1988), Amsterdam, North Holland
36. Vilkas C. L'évaluation au CNRS. La Revue pour l'histoire du CNRS 11 November (2004)