Bibliometrics as a performance measurement tool for research evaluation: The case of research funded by the national cancer institute of Canada

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 66-83

  Campbell, David ^a   Picard Aitken, Michelle ^a   Côté, Grégoire ^a   Caruso, Julie ^a   Valentim, Rodolfo ^b   Edmonds, Stuart ^c   Williams, Gregory Thomas ^b   Macaluso, Benoît ^d   Robitaille, Jean Pierre ^d   Bastien, Nicolas ^d   Laframboise, Marie Claude ^d   Lebeau, Louis Michel ^d   Mirabel, Philippe ^d   Larivière, Vincent ^d   Archambault, Éric ^a  

^a Science Metrix   (Canada)

^b Societe canadienne du cancer   (Canada)

^c Canadian Partnership Against Cancer   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Grant program; Performance measurement; Research evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949318611     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214009354774     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1320-1326.
2. Archambault, É., & Côté, G. (2008). Better bibliometrics needed for greater accountability of research expenditures. Research Money, 22, 8.
3. Canadian Cancer Research Alliance. (2007). Cancer research investment in Canada, 2005. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://www.ccra-acrc.ca/PDF%20Files/CCRA_07_EN_Full%20Report.pdf.
4. Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999). Citation, funding acknowledgment and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55, 402-408.
5. Hicks, D., Tomizawa, H., Saitoh, Y., & Kobayashi, S. (2004). Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Research Evaluation, 13, 78-86.
6. Jönsson, B., & Wilking, N. (2007). Cancer research and development and the drug development process. Annals of Oncology, 18, iii49-iii54.
7. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261-271.
8. Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagné, É. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 997-1004.
9. Lawini, S.M., & Bayer, A.E. (1983). Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications: New evidence with peer assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34, 59-74.
10. Lewison, G., & Carding, P. (2003). Evaluating UK research in speech and language therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 38, 65-84.
11. López-Illescas, C., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Moed, H.F. (2008). The actual citation impact of European oncological research. European Journal of Cancer, 44, 228-236.
12. Luciani, S., & Berman, N.J. (2000). Canadian strategy for cancer control. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 21, 23-25.
13. Luukkonen, T. (2002). Research evaluation in Europe: State of the art. Research Evaluation, 11, 81-84.
14. Martin, B.R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36, 343-362.
15. McAllister, P., Anderson, R.C., & Narin, F. (1980). Comparison of peer and citation assessment of the influence of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 31, 147-152.
16. Moed, H.F., de Bruin, R.E., & van Leeuwen, T.N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33, 381-442.
17. Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
18. Moed, H.F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57, 13-18.
19. National Cancer Institute of Canada. (2005). NCIC 2015: Driving excellent cancer research to improve cancer control. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://www.ncic.cancer.ca/a 1/4/media/NCIC/Files%20list/English-20files/PDF/Strategic%20plan%20-%20EN%20-%20PDF%20-%202005_530236530.ashx.
20. National Cancer Institute of Canada. (2009). Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://www.ncic.cancer.ca/About%20us%20and%20news/History%20and%20mission.aspx.
21. National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdfstart.htm.
22. Rangnekar, D. (2005). Acknowledged: Analysing the bibliometric presence of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Aslib Proceedings, 57, 247-260.
23. Seglen, P.O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 497.
24. Soteriades, E.S., Rosmarakis, E.S., Paraschakis, K., & Falagas, M.E. (2006). Research contribution of different world regions in the top 50 biomedical journals (1995-2002). The Faseb Journal, 20, 29-34.
25. Trochim, W.M., Marcus, S.E., Mâsse, L.C., Moser, R.P., & Weld, P.C. (2008). The evaluation of large research initiatives: A participatory integrative mixed-methods approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 8-28.
26. Van Raan, A.F.J. (2004). Measuring science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.