Field normalized citation rates, field normalized journal impact and Norwegian weights for allocation of university research funds

Scientometrics

Volumn 92, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 767-780

  Ahlgren, Per ^a,b   Colliander, Cristian ^b   Persson, Olle ^b  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Field normalized citation rates; Journal impact; Norwegian model; Research fund allocation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865530172     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0632-x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance-An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822-834.
2. Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1990). United Germany-the new scientific superpower. Scientometrics, 19(5-6), 513-521.
3. Butler, L. (2004). What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 389-405). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2004). Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key. Scientometrics, 59(2), 253-276.
5. Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861-874.
6. Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607-632.
7. Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277-304.
8. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
9. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145-154.
10. 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(3), 381-422.
11. Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 423-430.
12. Sandström, U., & Sandström, E. (2009). The field factor: towards a metric for academic institutions. Research Evaluation, 18(3), 243-250.
13. Schneider, J. W. (2009). An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. European Political Science, 8(3), 364-378.
14. Seglen, P. O. (1994). Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 1-11.
15. Sivertsen, G. (2010). A performance indicator based on complete data for the scientific publication output at research institutions. ISSI Newsletter, 6(1), 22-28.
16. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.
17. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131.