Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Allocative efficiency in public research funding: Can bibliometrics help?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Abramo, Giovanni
  • D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea
  • Caprasecca, Alessandro
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The use of outcome control modes of research evaluation exercises is ever more frequent. They are conceived as tools to stimulate increased levels of research productivity, and to guide choices in allocating components of government research budgets for publicly funded institutions. There are several contributions in the literature that compare the different methodological approaches that policy makers could adopt for these exercises, however the comparisons are limited to only a few disciplines. This work, examining the case of the whole of the "hard sciences" of the Italian academic system, makes a comparison between results obtained from peer review type of evaluations (as adopted by the Ministry of Universities and Research) and those possible from a bibliometric approach (as developed by the authors). The aim is to understand to what extent bibliometric methodology, which is noted as relatively inexpensive, time-saving and exhaustive, can complement and integrate peer review methodology in research evaluation.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V77-4V57XX5-2/2/3b1b274c6d6c40a48494f569ea650edb
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.

    Volume (Year): 38 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 1 (February)
    Pages: 206-215

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:38:y:2009:i:1:p:206-215

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

    Related research

    Keywords: Research assessment Universities Peer review Bibliometrics;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Rinia, E. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N. & van Vuren, H. G. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1998. "Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 95-107, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research governance in academia: are there alternatives to academic rankings?," IEW - Working Papers 423, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Mirko Titze & Matthias Brachert & Hans-Ulrich Brautzsch, 2011. "Mapping Local and Regional Potentials for Inter-sectoral Technology Flows in Industrial Clusters – Empirical Results for Germany," ERSA conference papers ersa11p660, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Daraio, Cinzia & Moed, Henk F., 2011. "Is Italian science declining?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1380-1392.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:38:y:2009:i:1:p:206-215. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.