IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v16y2007i4p231-242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing novel quantitative indicators of research ‘quality’, esteem and ‘user engagement’: an economics pilot study

Author

Listed:
  • Claire Donovan
  • Linda Butler

Abstract

Applying ‘standard’ publication and citation measures to the social sciences is fast becoming an outmoded practice, yet we have still to develop credible quantitative alternatives to inform research evaluation exercises. This paper reports the outcomes of a comparative pilot study of five Australian economics departments which tested data produced using novel bibliometric, esteem, and ‘user engagement’ measures. The results were presented to a group of expert peers drawn from the economics groups studied. There was support for developing some novel bibliometric indicators and ‘user engagement’ measures, but esteem indicators were roundly rejected. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire Donovan & Linda Butler, 2007. "Testing novel quantitative indicators of research ‘quality’, esteem and ‘user engagement’: an economics pilot study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 231-242, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:16:y:2007:i:4:p:231-242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820207X257030
    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. Pablo D’Este & Puay Tang & Surya Mahdi & Andy Neely & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo, 2013. "The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 481-502, May.
    2. Katja Rost & Bruno S. Frey, 2011. "Quantitative and Qualitative Rankings of Scholars," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 63(1), pages 63-91, January.
    3. Jerome K. Vanclay & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: a critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 751-771, June.
    4. Vanclay, Jerome K., 2011. "An evaluation of the Australian Research Council's journal ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 265-274.

    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:16:y:2007:i:4:p:231-242. 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.