How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: A balanced approach

Research Evaluation

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 2-18

  Schmoch, Ulrich ^a   Schubert, Torben ^b   Jansen, Dorothea ^c   Heidler, Richard ^c   von Görtz, Regina ^c  

^a FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS AND INNOVATION RESEARCH ISI   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KARLSRUHE   (Germany)

^c Deutsche Universität für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953339796     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820210X492477     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ball, R and R Wilkinson 1994. The use and abuse of performance indicators in UK higher education. Higher Education, 27,417-427.
2. Bonaccorsi, A and G Thoma 2007. Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research Policy, 36(6), 813-831.
3. Breslow, N 1984. Extrapoisson variation in log-linear models.Applied Statistics, 33, 38-44.
4. Crane, D 1969. Social structure in a group of scientists: test of invisible college hypothesis. American Sociological Review,34, 335-352.
5. Dasgupta, P and P David 1994. Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487-507.
6. Eisenführ, F and M Weber 2004. Rationales Entscheiden, 4th edn. Berlin: Springer
7. Elton, L 1987. Warning Signs. Times Higher Education Supplement.
8. Franke, K, A Wald and K Bartl 2006. Die Wirkung von Reformen im deutschen Forschungssystem. Eine Studie in den Feldern Astrophysik, Nanotechnologie und Mikroökonomie. Speyer Forschungsberichte, 245, Speyer.
9. Geuna, A 1997. Allocation of funds and research output: the case of UK universities. Revue d'Economie Industrielle, 79,143-162.
10. Geuna, A 1999. The Economics of Knowledge Production: Funding and the Structure of University Research, New Horizons in the Economics of Innovation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Elgar.
11. Gläser, J 2006. Wissenschaftliche Produktionsgemeinschaften-Die soziale Ordnung der Forschung. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus.
12. Hargens, L, L Mullins, and N C Hecht 1980. Research areas and stratification processes in science. Social Studies of Science,10, 55-74.
13. Hayfield, T and J Racine 2008. Nonparametric econometrics: the np package. Journal of Statistical Software, 27(5). Available at http://www.isi.fhg.de/isi-de/p/mitarbeiter/tos.php, last accessed 1 March 2010.
14. Hornbostel, S 2001. Third party funding of German universities: an indicator of research activity? Scientometrics, 50, 523-537.
15. Jansen, D, A Wald, K Franke, U Schmoch and T Schubert 2007. Third party research funding and performance in research: on the effects of institutional conditions on research performance of teams. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59, 125-149.
16. Jansen, D, R von Görtz and R Heidler 2010. Is nanoscience a Mode-2 field? Disciplinary differences in modes of knowledge production. In Governance and Performance in the German Public Research Sector: Disciplinary Differences, ed. D Jansen, pp. 59-85. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).
17. Johnes, J 2006. Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273-288.
18. Keeney, R L 1992. Valuefocused Thinking: a Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Krohn, W and G Küppers 1989. Die Selbstorganisation der Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
20. Larédo, P 1999. Changing Structure, Organisation and Nature of Public Sector Research: the Development of a Reproducible Method for the Characterisation of a Large Set of Research Collectives: a Test on Human Genetics Research in Europe. Armines: CSI.
21. Larédo, P and P Mustar 2000. Laboratory activity profiles: an exploratory approach. Scientometrics, 47, 515-539.
22. Laudel, G 2005. Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance? Research Evaluation, 14(1), April,27-34.
23. Luhmann, N 1990. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
24. Mayntz, R 1998. Socialist academies of sciences: the enforced orientation of basic research at user needs. Research Policy,27, 781-791.
25. Merton, R 1957. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6),635-659.
26. Merton, R 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
27. Mullins, N C, L L Hargens, P K Hecht and E L Kick 1977. The group structure of cocitation clusters: a comparative study. American Sociological Review, 42, 552-562.
28. Nagpaul, P S and S Roy 2003. Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance. Scientometrics, 56(3),383-402.
29. Rousseau, S and R Rousseau 1997. Data envelopment analysis as a tool for constructing scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 40(1), 45-56.
30. Schmoch, U and T Schubert 2008. Are international copublications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometrics, 74 (3), 361-377.
31. Schmoch, U and T Schubert 2009. Sustainability of incentives for excellent research-the German case. Scientometrics, 81,195-218.
32. Schubert, T 2008. Should Scientific Research Groups Specialise in the Production of Scientific Goods? DIME-BRICK Workshop, 14-15 July 2008, Torino. Available at http://www.isi.fhg.de/p/Downloads/tos_should_scientific_research_groups.pdf, last accessed 1 March 2010.
33. Schubert, T 2009. Empirical observations on new public management to increase efficiency in public research-boon or bane? Research Policy, 38, S. 1225-1234.
34. Shrum, W and N Mullins 1988. Network analysis in the study of science and technology. In Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, ed. A F J van Raan, pp. 107-133. North Holland: Elsevier.
35. Stokes, T D and J A Hartley 1989. Coauthorship, social structure and influence within specialties. Social Studies of Science, 19,101-125.
36. Stolte-Heiskanen, V 1979. Externally determined resources and the effectiveness of research groups. Scientific Productivity, ed. F M Andrews, pp. 121-153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Van Raan, A F J 1997. The future of the quality assurance system: its impact on the social and professional recognition of scientists in the era of electronic publishing. Journal of Information Science, 23(6), 445-450.
38. Wagner, C and L Leydesdorff 2005. Network structure, self-organization and the growth of international research collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608-1618.
39. Wald, A 2005. Zur Messung von Input und Output wissenschaftlicher Produktion. FÖV Discussion Papers, 20, Speyer.
40. Wald, A 2007. Effects of 'Mode 2'-related policy on the research process: the case of publicly funded German nanotechnology. Science Studies, 20(1), 26-51.
41. Warning, J 2004. Performance differences in German higher education: empirical analysis of strategic groups. Review of Industrial Organization, 24, 393-408.
42. Winterfeldt, D V and W Edwards 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Wissenschaftsrat 2005. Stellungnahme zu Leistungsfähigkeit, Ressourcen und Größe universitätsmedizinischer Einrichtungen. Bremen.
44. Wooldridge, J 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data: the MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.