Normalization of peer-evaluation measures of group research quality across academic disciplines

Research Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 107-116

  Kenna, Ralph ^a   Berche, Bertrand ^b  

^a Institute for Clean Growth and Future Mobility   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUT JEAN LAMOUR   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959830040     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876625     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Alonso, S, F J Cabrerizo, E Herrera-Viedma and F Herrera 2009. h-Index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273-289.
2. Corbyn, Z 2009 End unfit comparisons. Times Higher Education, 1926, 20.
3. Costas, R, M Bordons, T N van Leeuwen and A F J van Raan 2009. Scaling rules in the science system: influence of field specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 740-753.
4. Evidence (Thompson Reuters) 2009. The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. Report to Universities UK. Available at: urlwww.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/bibliometrics.pdf, last accessed 8 January 2011.
5. Harnad, S 2008. Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 03-107.
6. Harnad, S 2009. Open access scientometrics and the UK Research assessment Exercise. Scientometrics, 79, 147-156.
7. Harrison, M 2009. Does high quality research require critical ass? In The Question of R&D Specialisation: Perspectives nd Policy Implications, eds D Pontikakis, D Kriakou and R an Baval, pp. 57-59. European Commission: JRC Technical and Scientific Reports.
8. Ingham, A G, G Levinger, J Graves and V Peckham 1974. The ringelmann effect: studies of group size and group performance. ournal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 371-384.
9. Katz, J S 1999. The self-similar science system. Research Policy, 8, 501-517.
10. Katz, J S 2000. Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation. cience and Public Policy, 27(1), February, 23-36.
11. Katz, J S 2005. Scale-independent bibliometric indicators. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 3, 428.
12. Kenna, R and B Berche 2010. The extensive nature of group quality. Europhysics Letters, 90 58002.
13. Kenna, R and B Berche 2011. Critical mass and the dependency of research quality on group size. Scientometrics, 86, 527-540.
14. King, D A 2004. The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 11-316.
15. Leydesdorff, L and L Bornmann 2010. How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1002/asi.21450.
16. Leydesdorff, L and T Opthof 2010. Normalization at the field level: fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 644-646.
17. Leydesdorff, L and J C Shin 2010. How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines. arXiv:1010.2465.
18. Mahdi, S, P D'Este and A Neely 2008. Citation counts: are they good predictors of RAE scores? A bibliometric analysis of RAE 2001. Available at: urlhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1154053, last accessed 8 January 2011.
19. Merton, R K 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.
20. Oppenheim, C and M A C Summers 2008. Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise part VI: Unit of Assessment 67 (music). Information Research, 13, 2. Opthof, T and L Leydesdorff 2010. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ('Leiden') evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 423-430.
21. Ringelmann, M 1913. Recherches sur les moteurs animés: travails de l'homme. Annales de l'Institut National Agronomique, 2, 2-39.
22. Tsay, M-Y 2009. An analysis and comparison of scientometric data between journals of physics, chemistry and engineering. Scientometrics, 78, 279-293.
23. Van Raan, A F J 2005. Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62, 133-143.
24. Van Raan, A F J 2006a. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgement for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67, 491-502.
25. Van Raan, A F J 2006b. Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: research group indicator distributions and correlations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 408-430.
26. Van Raan, A F J 2006c Performance-related differences of bibliometric statistical properties of research groups: cumulative advantages and hierarchically layered networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1919-1935.
27. Van Raan, A F J 2006d Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations. Journal of the American society of Information Science and Technology, 57, 408-430.
28. Van Raan, A F J 2008 Bibliometric statistical properties of the 100 largest European research universities: prevalent scaling rules in the science system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 461-475.
29. Van Raan, A F J, T N van Leeuwen, M S Visser, N J van Eck and L Waltman 2010 Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, 4 431-435.
30. Waltman, L, N J van Eck, T N van Leeuwen, M S Visser and A J van Raan 2010 Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations.Journal of Informetrics, DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001.