IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v12y2003i2p91-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scoreboards of research excellence

Author

Listed:
  • Robert J W Tijssen

Abstract

A critical discussion is presented of what could be understood as research excellence, and how to deal with fundamental issues and methodological challenges in operationalizing and evaluating this complex, multi-faceted notion in terms of measurable attributes at organizational levels. This paper argues for a systemic and interactive approach, combining multiple perspectives and stakeholders, while incorporating a wide range of information sources and quantitative indicators within the analytical framework of a ‘score-board’. Context-specific and customized score-boards show promise as a structuring tool in informed debate, indicator selection, comparative analysis and benchmarking studies of research excellence. Guidelines and recommendations are illustrated by way of a fictitious scoreboard with recent empirical data for economics research at the universities in the Netherlands. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert J W Tijssen, 2003. "Scoreboards of research excellence," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 91-103, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:12:y:2003:i:2:p:91-103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154403781776690
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Morescalchi & Sjoerd Hardeman, 2015. "Technological diversity and the impact of regional innovation: evidence for the EU," ERSA conference papers ersa15p1250, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Grupp, Hariolf & Schubert, Torben, 2010. "Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 67-78, February.
    3. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2014. "Assessing national strengths and weaknesses in research fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 766-775.
    4. Nuno Boavida, 2011. "Decision making processes based on innovation indicators: which implications for technology assessment?," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 7(7), pages 33-55, November.
    5. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Ranking research institutions by the number of highly-cited articles per scientist," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 915-923.
    6. Grupp, Hariolf & Mogee, Mary Ellen, 2004. "Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1373-1384, November.
    7. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2009. "Mapping Excellence in National Research Systems," Evaluation Review, , vol. 33(2), pages 159-188, April.
    8. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Jos J. Winnink, 2018. "Capturing ‘R&D excellence’: indicators, international statistics, and innovative universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 687-699, February.
    9. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2020. "A novel methodology to assess the scientific standing of nations at field level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    10. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2014. "Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 89-97.
    11. Albarrán, Pedro & Ortuño, Ignacio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2011. "The measurement of low- and high-impact in citation distributions: Technical results," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 48-63.
    12. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 718-731.
    13. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    14. Nuno Boavida, 2011. "How composite indicators of innovation can influence technology policy decision?," IET Working Papers Series 03/2011, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    15. Nicky Agate & Rebecca Kennison & Stacy Konkiel & Christopher P. Long & Jason Rhody & Simone Sacchi & Penelope Weber, 2020. "The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. E. Carayannis & E. Grigoroudis, 2014. "Linking innovation, productivity, and competitiveness: implications for policy and practice," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 199-218, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:12:y:2003:i:2:p:91-103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.