The Use of Bibliometrics to Measure Research Performance in Education Sciences

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 86-114

  Diem, Andrea ^a   Wolter, Stefan C ^a,b,c,d  

^a Swiss Coordination Centre for Research in Education (SCCRE)   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^c CESIFO   (Germany)

^d IZA   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Education sciences; Research performance; Science research; Scientometric methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872674637     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-012-9264-5     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Aaltojärvi, I., Arminen, I., Auranen, O., & Pasanen, H.-M. (2008). Scientific productivity, web visibility and citation patterns in sixteen Nordic sociology departments. Acta Sociologica, 51, 5-22.
2. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79, 517-539.
3. Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2009). Citation statistics. Statistical Science, 24, 1-14.
4. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagne, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68, 329-342.
5. Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1987). The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 52, 631-642.
6. Bernauer, T., & Gilardi, F. (2010). Publication output of Swiss political science departments. Swiss Political Science Review, 16, 279-303.
7. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2003). Age effects in scientific productivity: The case of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). Scientometrics, 58, 49-90.
8. Borrego, A., Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Ollé, C. (2010). Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: A gender perspective. Scientometrics, 83, 93-101.
9. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40, 1393-1402.
10. Budd, J. M., & Magnuson, L. (2010). Higher education literature revisited: Citation patterns examined. Research in Higher Education, 51, 294-304.
11. Butler, L. (2002). A list of published papers is no measure of value. Nature, 419, 877.
12. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists' productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18, 55-72.
13. Commission, European. (2010). Assessing Europe's university-based research (EUR 24187 EN). Brussels: European Commission.
14. Corby, K. (2001). Method or madness? Educational research and citation prestige. Libraries and the Academy, 1, 279-288.
15. Corby, K. (2003). Constructing core journal lists: Mixing science and alchemy. Libraries and the Academy, 3, 207-217.
16. Cusin, C., Grossenbacher, S., & Vögeli-Mantovani, U. (2000). FER-Studie "Prospective de la recherche en éducation en Suisse": Teilstudie Erziehungswissenschaften an Schweizer Universitäten (Orientierung, Produktivität und Nachwuchsförderung). Aarau: SKBF.
17. D'Amico, R., Vermigli, P., & Canetto, S. S. (2011). Publication productivity and career advancement by female and male psychology faculty: The case of Italy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 175-184.
18. De Witte, K., & Rogge, N. (2010). To publish or not to publish? On the aggregation and drivers of research performance. Scientometrics, 85, 657-680.
19. Dees, W. (2008). Innovative scientometric methods for a continuous monitoring of research activities in educational science. In H. Kretschmer & F. Havemann (Eds.), Proceedings of WIS 2008, Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting (pp. 1-10). Berlin: Ges. für Wissenschaftsforschung.
20. Earp, V. J. (2010). A bibliometric snapshot of the journal of higher education and its impact on the field. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 29, 283-295.
21. Fairbairn, H., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Preston, G., Cantwell, R., & Scevak, J. (2009). A profile of education journals. In P. Jeffrey (Ed.), AARE 2008 conference papers collection. The Australian Association of Research in Education. Retrieved June 9, 2011, from http://www. aare. edu. au/08pap/fai08605. pdf.
22. Fernández-Cano, A., & Bueno, Á. (1999). Synthesizing scientometric patterns in Spanish educational research. Scientometrics, 46, 349-367.
23. Fröhlich, G. (1999). Das Messen des leicht Messbaren. Output-Indikatoren, Impact-Masse: Artefakte der Szientometrie? In J. Becker & W. Göhring (Eds.), Kommunikation statt Markt. Zu einer alternativen Theorie der Informationsgesellschaft (pp. 27-38). Sankt Augustin: GMD-Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH.
24. García-Pérez, M. (2010). Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 2070-2085.
25. Gonzalez-Brambila, C., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36, 1035-1051.
26. Graber, M., Launov, A., & Wälde, K. (2008). Publish or perish? The increasing importance of publications for prospective economics professors in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. German Economic Review, 9, 457-472.
27. Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2010). Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals. Scientometrics, 85, 471-487.
28. Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Turner, L. (2005). Identifying age, cohort and period effects in scientific research productivity: Discussion and illustration using simulated and actual data on French physicists. NBER Working Paper Series, 11739. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://www. nber. org/papers/w11739.
29. Harzing, A.-W. (2007). Publish or Perish. Retrieved Sept. 15, 2010, from http://www. harzing. com/pop. htm.
30. Harzing, A.-W. K., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 61-73.
31. Hicks, B. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44, 193-215.
32. 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.
33. Hicks, D., & Wang, J. (2011). Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 284-294.
34. Hornbostel, S., & Keiner, E. (2002). Evaluation der Erziehungswissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 5, 634-653.
35. Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1819-1828.
36. Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science, 40, 433-451.
37. Jacsó, P. (2008). Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32, 102-114.
38. Jansen, D., Wald, A., Franke, K., Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2007). Third party research funding and performance in research. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59, 125-149.
39. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., & Croissant, Y. (2009). Testing bibliometric indicators by their prediction of scientists promotions. Scientometrics, 78, 467-479.
40. Jokić, M., & Ball, R. (2006). Qualität und Quantität wissenschaftlicher Veröffentlichungen: Bibliometrische Aspekte der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Jülich: Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH.
41. Keiner, E. (1999). Erziehungswissenschaft 1947-1990: Eine empirische und vergleichende Untersuchung zur kommunikativen Praxis einer Disziplin. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
42. Knorr, K. D., Mittermeir, R., Aichholzer, G., & Waller, G. (1979). Individual publication productivity as a social position effect in academic and industrial research units. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), The effectiveness of research groups in six countries (pp. 55-94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Krampen, G., Becker, R., Wahner, U., & Montada, L. (2007). On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications. Scientometrics, 71, 191-202.
44. Kroc, R. J. (1984). Using citation analysis to assess scholarly productivity. Educational Researcher, 13, 17-22.
45. Kyvik, S. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 54-71.
46. Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, É., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: An analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics, 87, 483-498.
47. Leinenkugel, P., Dees, W., & Rittberger, M. (2011). Abdeckung erziehungswissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften in Google Scholar. In J. Griesbaum, T. Mandel, & C. Womser-Hacker (Eds.), Information und Wissen: Global, sozial und frei? (pp. 160-170). Boizenburg: Hülsbusch.
48. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81, 114-132.
49. Linmans, A. J. M. (2010). Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link: Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures. Scientometrics, 83, 337-354.
50. Long, J. S., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1993). Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and the effects of productivity. American Sociological Review, 58, 703-722.
51. Luce, T. S., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Rating of educational and psychological journals. Educational Researcher, 7, 8-10.
52. McNally, G. P. (2010). Scholarly productivity, impact, and quality among academic psychologists at group of eight universities. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62, 204-215.
53. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105-2125.
54. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
55. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66, 81-100.
56. Neuhaus, C. (2010). Vergleichende Analysen von Forschungsleistungen: Forschungsgruppen im Spiegel bibliometrischer Indikatoren. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
57. Paludkiewicz, K., & Wohlrabe, K. (2010). Qualitätsanalyse von Zeitschriften in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften: Über Zitationsdatenbanken und Impaktfaktoren im Online-Zeitalter. Ifo Schnelldienst, 63, 18-28.
58. Puuska, H.-M. (2010). Effects of scholar's gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types: Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics, 82, 419-437.
59. Rauber, M., & Ursprung, H. W. (2008). Life cycle and cohort productivity in economic research: The case of Germany. German Economic Review, 9, 431-456.
60. Rey, O. (2009). Quality indicators and educational research publications: Which publications count? Dossier d'actualité de la VST, 46. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://www. inrp. fr/vst/LettreVST/english/46-june-2009_en. php?onglet=integrale.
61. Rokach, L., Kalech, M., Blank, I., & Stern, R. (2011). Who is going to win the next association for the advancement of artificial intelligence fellowship award? Evaluating researchers by mining bibliographic data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 2456-2470.
62. Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & DiCrisi, F. A, III (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43, 423-446.
63. Schulze, G. G., Warning, S., & Wiermann, C. (2008). Zeitschriftenrankings für die Wirtschaftswissenschaften: Konstruktion eines umfassenden Metaindexes. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 9, 286-305.
64. Shin, E.-J. (2004). Measuring the impact of electronic publishing on citation indicators of education journals. Libri, 54, 221-227.
65. Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. K. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85, 581-594.
66. Smart, J. C. (1983). Perceived quality and citation rates of education journals. Research in Higher Education, 19, 175-182.
67. Smeby, J.-C., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education, 46, 593-619.
68. Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 45, 891-920.
69. Togia, A., & Tsigilis, N. (2006). Impact factor and education journals: A critical examination and analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 362-379.
70. van Aalst, J. (2010). Using Google Scholar to estimate the impact of journal articles in education. Educational Researcher, 39, 387-400.
71. van Leeuwen, T. (2006). The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66, 133-154.
72. van Ours, J. (2009). Will you still need me: When I'm 64? De Economist, 157, 441-460.
73. van Raan, A. F. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2011). Severe language effect in university rankings: Particularly Germany and France are wronged in citation-based rankings. Scientometrics, 88, 495-498.
74. Wellington, J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2005). Writing for publication: What counts as a 'high status, eminent academic journal'? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29, 35-48.
75. Winkelmann, R. (2008). Economic analysis of count data (5th ed.). New York: Springer.