How the existence of a regional bibliographic information system can help evaluators to conform to the principles of the Leiden Manifesto

Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Verleysen, Frederik ^a   Rousseau, Ronald ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Flanders; Leiden manifesto; Performance based research funding; Regional bibliographic information system; Research evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85017535121     PISSN: 1013090X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Aagaard, K., Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-besed research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian publication indicator. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 106-117. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv003
2. Abramo, G., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 87(3), 499-514. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7
3. Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2016). Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian publication indicator at the individual level. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 371-382. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv047
4. Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2016). To what extent does the leiden manifesto also apply to altmetrics? A discussion of the manifesto against the background of research intoaltmetrics. Online Information Review, 40(4), 529-543. doi:10.1108/OIR-09-2015-0314
5. Broadbent, J. (2010). The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Performance measurement and resource allocation. Australian Accounting Review, 20(1), 14-23. doi:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00076.x
6. Butler, L. (2003a). Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications-The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143-155. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00007-0
7. Butler, L. (2003b). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39-46. doi:10.3152/147154403781776780
8. Butler, L., & McAllister, I. (2011). Evaluating university research performance metrics. European Political Science, 10(1), 44-58. doi:10.1057/eps.2010.13
9. David, D., & Frangopol, P. (2015). The lost paradise, the original sin, and the Dodo bird: A scientometrics Sapere Aude manifesto as a reply to the Leiden manifesto on scientometrics. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2255-2257. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1634-2
10. 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. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018532.70146.02
11. DORA. (2012). San Francisco Declaration On Research Assessment (DORA). Retrieved from http://www.ascb.org/dora/
12. Engels, T. C. E., Goos, P., Dexters, N., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2013). Group size, h-index, and efficiency in publishing in top journals explain expert panel assessments of research group quality and productivity. Research Evaluation, 22(4), 224-236. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt013
13. Giménez-Toledo, E., Manana-Rodriguez, J., Engels, T. C. E., Ingwersen, P., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Zuccala, A. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account: Current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics, 107(2), 685-699. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5
14. Glänzel, W., & Wouters, P. (2013). The do's and don'ts in individual level bibliometrics. Paper presented at the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw
15. Hammarfelt, B., & de Rijcke, S. (2015). Accountability in context: Effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms and individualworking routines in the faculty of arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 63-77. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu029
16. Hansson, F. (2010). Dialogue in or with peer review? Evaluating research organizations in order to promote organizational learning. Science and Public Policy, 37(4), 239-251. doi:10.3152/030234210X496600
17. Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251-261. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
18. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. doi:10.1038/520429a
19. Martin, B. R. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the 'impact agenda': Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247-254. doi:10.3152/095820211X13118583635693
20. Ochsner, M., & Hug, S. (2016). Indicators for research performance in the humanities? The scholars' view on research quality and indicators. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, September 14-16, 2016, València, Spain.
21. Ossenblok, T. L. B. (2016). Scientific communication in the social sciences and humanities. Analysis of publication and collaboration in Flanders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Antwerp, Antwerp.
22. Ossenblok, T. L. B., Engels, T. C. E., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science. A comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005-9). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280-290. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs019
23. Rahman, A. I. M. J., Guns, R., Rousseau, R., & Engels, T. C. E. (2015). Is the expertise of evaluati on panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: A quantitative approach based on barycenters. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 704-721. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.009
24. Rons, N., De Bruyn, A., & Cornelis, J. (2008). Research evaluation per discipline: A peerreview method and its outcomes. Research Evaluation, 17(1), 45-57. doi:10.3152/095820208X240208
25. Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628-638. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9%3C628::AID-ASI5%3E3.0.CO;2-0
26. Spruyt, E., & Engels, T. (2013). Nieuwe sleutel verdeling van middelen Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds. Thema: Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs en Management, 13(3), 56-61.
27. Verleysen, F. T. (2016). Books in the social sciences and humanities. Analyses of scholarly publication types based on the VABB-SHW (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
28. Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2013). A label for peer-reviewed books. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 428-430. doi:10.1002/asi.22836
29. Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). Internationalization of peer reviewed and nonpeer reviewed book publications in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1431-1444. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1267-x
30. Verleysen, F. T., Ghesquière, P., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW). In. Blockmans, L. Engwall, & D. Weaire (Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance (pp. 17-127). London, UK: Portland Press.
31. Westerheijden, D. F. (1997). A solid base for decisions. Use of the VSNU research evaluations in Dutch universities. Higher Education, 33(4), 397-413. doi: 10 1023/A:1002995623272