Bibliometrics as a tool for research evaluation

Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 323-349

  Hicks, Diana ^a   Melkers, Julia ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881681802     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. Adler, R., J. Ewing and P. Taylor (2008), 'Citation statistics', International Mathematical Union, available at: http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf.
2. Aksnes, Dag W. and Arie Rip (2009), 'Researchers' perceptions of citations', Research Policy, 38, 895-905.
3. Börner, Katy, Chaomei Chen and Kevin Boyack (2003), 'Visualizing knowledge domains', in Blaise Cronin (ed.), Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, volume 37, Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc./American Society for Information Science and Technology, pp. 179-255.
4. Bornmann, Lutz (2010), 'Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff paper', Journal of Informetrics, 4, 441-3.
5. Bornmann, Lutz and Daniel Hans-Dieter (2008), 'What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior', Journal of Documentation, 64, 45-80.
6. Bornmann, L., R. Mutz, C. Neuhaus and H-D. Daniel (2008), 'Use of citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results', Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 93-102.
7. Cole, S. (1989), 'Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists', Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 14, 9-13.
8. Cole, S. and J.R. Cole (1967), 'Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science', American Sociological Review, 32, 377-90.
9. Cole, F.J. and N.B. Eales (1917), 'The history of comparative anatomy: Part 1 - a statistical analysis of the literature', Science Progress in the Twentieth Century: A Quarterly Journal of Scientific Work & Thought, 6, 578-97.
10. Cozzens, Susan E. (1989), 'What do citations count? The rhetoric first model', Scientometrics, 15, 437-47.
11. Cozzens, Susan E. (2007), 'Death by peer review? The impact of results- oriented management in US research', in Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser (eds), The Changing Governance of the Sciences, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 225-44.
12. Crane, D. (1972), Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communication, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Cronin, Blaise (1984), The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication, London: Taylor Francis.
14. De Bellis, Nicola (2009), Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis, Lantham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
15. ESF (European Science Foundation) (2009), 'Evaluation in National Research Funding Agencies: approaches, experiences and case studies', Strasbourg: Member Organisation Forum on Ex- Post Evaluation of Funding Schemes and Research Programmes.
16. Garfield, Eugene (1964), '"Science Citation Index" - a new dimension in indexing', Science, New Series, 144(3619), 649-54.
17. Garfield, Eugene (1979), Citation Indexing, New York: Wiley.
18. Gilbert, Nigel (1977), 'Referencing as persuasion', Social Studies of Science, 7, 113-22.
19. Gmür, Markus (2003), 'Co- citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: a methodological evaluation', Scientometrics, 57, 27-57.
20. Hicks, Diana M. (1987), 'Limitations of co- citation analysis as a tool for science policy', Social Studies of Science, 17, 295-316.
21. Hicks, Diana M. (1988), 'Limitations and more limitations of co- citation analysis/bibliometric modelling: a reply to Franklin', Social Studies of Science, 18, 375-84.
22. Hicks, Diana (2004), 'The four literatures of social science', in Henk Moed, W. Glänzel and U. Schmoch (eds), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Studies, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 473-96.
23. Hicks, Diana (2012), 'Performance- based university research funding systems', Research Policy, 41, 251-61.
24. Hicks, Diana, H. Tomizawa, Y. Saitoh and S. Kobayashi (2004), 'Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States', Research Evaluation, 13, 76-86.
25. Hilgartner, S. and S.I. Brandt-rauf (1994), 'Data access, ownership, and control toward empirical studies of access practices', Science Communication, 15, 355-72.
26. King, J. (1987), 'A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation', Journal of Information Science, 13, 261-76.
27. Klavans, Richard and Kevin W. Boyack (2005), 'Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science', Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 251-63.
28. Latour, Bruno (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
29. Latour, Bruno and S. Woolgar (1979), Laboratory Life, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30. Luukkonen, Tertu (1997), 'Why has Latour's theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis', Scientometrics, 38, 27-37.
31. MacRoberts, M.H. and B.R. MacRoberts (1996), 'Problems of citation analysis', Scientometrics, 36, 435-44.
32. Martin, Ben R. and J. Irvine (1983), 'Assessing basic research', Research Policy, 12, 61-90.
33. McCain, K.W. (1986), 'Cocited author mapping as a valid representation of intellectual structure', Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37, 111-22.
34. Meho, L.I. and K. Yang (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, 2105-25.
35. Merton, Robert K. (1988), 'The Matthew effect in Science II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property', ISIS, 79, 607-23.
36. Moed, Henk (2005), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Dordrecht: Springer.
37. 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, 552-62.
38. Narin, Francis (1976), Evaluative Bibliometrics, Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons Inc.
39. Narin, Francis and Kimberly S. Hamilton (1996), 'Bibliometric performance measures', Scientometrics, 36, 293-310.
40. Narin, F., K.S. Hamilton and D. Olivastro (1997), 'The increasing linkage between US technology and public science', Research Policy, 26, 317-30.
41. 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, 423-30.
42. OTA (1986), 'Research funding as an investment: can we measure the returns?' a technical memorandum, Washington, DC: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA- TMSET- 36.
43. Price, Derek De Solla (1963), Big Science, Little Science, New York: Columbia University Press.
44. Price, Derek De Solla (1965), 'Networks of scientific papers', Science, 149, 510-15.
45. Rafols, I., A.L. Porter and Loet Leydesdorff (2010), 'Science, overlay maps: a new tool for research policy and library management', Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 871-1887.
46. Rafols, Ismael, Loet Leydesdorff, Alice O'Hare, Paul Nightingale and Andy Stirling (2011), 'How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: a comparison between innovation studies and business & management', arXiv:1105.1227v3 [cs.DL], accessed 3 February, 2012.
47. REPP (2005), 'Quantitative indicators for research assessment, a literature review', Canberra: Australian National University.
48. Rip, A. (1988), 'Mapping of science: possibilities and limitations', in A.F.J. Van Raan (ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North- Holland: Elsevier.
49. Rogers, Juan D. (2010), 'Citation analysis of nanotechnology at the field level: implications for R&D evaluation', Research Evaluation, 19, 281-90.
50. Seglen, Per O. (1997), 'Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research', British Medical Journal, 314, 497.
51. Small, H. (1978), 'Cited documents as concept symbols', Social Studies of Science, 8, 327-40.
52. Small, H.G. (1980), 'Co- citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms', Journal of Documentation, 36, 183-96.
53. Stephan, P.E. and S.G. Levin (1988), 'Measures of scientific output and the age- productivity relationshsip', in A.F.J. Van Raan (ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North- Holland: Elsevier.
54. Van Raan, A.F.J. (1998), 'In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much', Scientometrics, 43, 129-39.
55. 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, 431-5.
56. Wagner, C.S., J.D. Roessner, K. Bobb, J.T. Klein, K.W. Boyack, J. Keyton, I. Rafols and K. Borner (2011), 'Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature', Journal of Informetrics, 5, 14-26.
57. White, H.D. (1990), 'Author co- citation analysis: overview and defense', in C.L. Borman (ed.), Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics, Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 84-106.
58. Wouters, Paul (1999), The Citation Culture, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
59. Youtie, Jan, Luciano Kay and Julia Melkers (2011), 'Using bibliographic coupling as a measure of centerness in R&D assessment', Working paper, Georgia Institute of Technology.
60. Zitt, Michel et al. (2005), 'Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: from cross- field to cross- scale effects of field- normalisation', Scientometrics, 63, 373-401.
61. Zuckerman, H. (1987), 'Citation analysis and the complex problem of intellectual influence', Scientometrics, 12, 329-38.