Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics

Scientometrics

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 499-514

  Abramo, Giovanni ^a,b   D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea ^b  

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Decision support systems; Peer review; Research assessment; Research productivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955465003     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Abramo, G., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2011). National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics, 86(2), 347-364.
2. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Pugini, F. (2008). The measurement of Italian Universities' research productivity by a non parametric-bibliometric methodology. Scientometrics, 76(2), 225-244.
3. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). Allocative efficiency in public research funding: can bibliometrics help? Research Policy, 38(1), 206-215.
4. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2010). Peer review research assessment: a sensitivity analysis of performance rankings to the share of research product evaluated. Scientometrics, 85(3), 705-720.
5. Adams, J., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales d'economie et de statistique, 4950, 127-162.
6. Aksnes, D. W. (2008). When different persons have an identical author name. How frequent are homonyms? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 838-841.
7. Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peers reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at Norvegian University. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.
8. Butler, L., & McAllister, I. (2007). Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research assessment exercise in political science. Political Studies Review, 7, 3-17.
9. D'Angelo, C. A., Giuffrida, C., & Abramo, G. (2011). A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in large-scale bibliometric databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 257-269.
10. Garfield, E. (1980). Premature discovery or delayed recognition-Why? Current Contents, 21, 5-10.
11. Glanzel, W., 2008. Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. In Kretschmer & F. Havemann (Eds.), Proceedings of WIS Fourth international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics and ninth COLLNET meeting, Berlin.
12. Harman, G. (2000). Allocating research infrastructure grants in post-binary higher education systems: British and Australian approaches. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(2), 111-126.
13. Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1438-1441.
14. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M., 2003. Incentives and invention in universities, National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 9727. http://papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=1158310.
15. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
16. Moxham, H., Anderson, J., 1992. Peer review. A view from the inside. Science and Technology Policy, 7-15.
17. Oppenheim, C. (1997). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 53(5), 477-487.
18. Oppenheim, C., & Norris, M. (2003). Citation counts and the research assessment exercise V: archaeology and the 2001 RAE. Journal of Documentation, 56(6), 709-730.
19. Pendlebury, D. A. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Scientometrics, 57(1), 1-11.
20. REF (Research Excellence Framework). 2009. http://www. hefce. ac. uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_38/#exec. Accessed 21 Jan 2011.
21. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, Th. N., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria, evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. Research Policy, 27, 95-107.
22. van Raan, A. F. J. (2008). Scaling rules in the science system: influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 565-576.