IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v21y2012i3p199-203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research assessment and monetary rewards: the overemphasized impact factor in China

Author

Listed:
  • Ju-fang Shao
  • Hui-yun Shen

Abstract

The assessment of quality in scientific research is a complex problem. The use of more objective scientometric indices in research evaluation emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. These scientometric indicators, among which the most common one is probably the journal impact factor (IF), are increasingly employed to evaluate the quality of scientific research performed by individual scientists, research groups, or institutes. In China, the IF is used not only to measure a journal's scientific influence, but has become increasingly important as a basis for recruitment or promotion, awards of research funding, grants, and authors' academic advancement. But in fact, the assessment of research mainly based on the IF will cause much academic 'froth', so it is necessary for universities and research institutions to reset the academic assessment system in China. In the assessment of scientific research, more research activities, like the organization of conferences and seminars, the coordination of research groups, and the participation to conferences, should be considered. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ju-fang Shao & Hui-yun Shen, 2012. "Research assessment and monetary rewards: the overemphasized impact factor in China," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 199-203, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:3:p:199-203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvs011
    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. Yaşar Tonta & Müge Akbulut, 2020. "Does monetary support increase citation impact of scholarly papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1617-1641, November.
    2. Yu-Wei Chang, 2019. "Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 81-104, October.
    3. Yu, Houqiang & Xu, Shenmeng & Xiao, Tingting & Hemminger, Brad M. & Yang, Siluo, 2017. "Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 466-482.
    4. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Journals that Rise from the Fourth Quartile to the First Quartile in Six Years or Less: Mechanisms of Change and the Role of Journal Self-Citations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-15, November.
    5. Palea, Vera, 2015. "Journal Rankings and the Sustainability of Diversity in Accounting Research," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201546, University of Turin.
    6. Liu, Weishu & Hu, Guangyuan & Tang, Li & Wang, Yuandi, 2015. "China's global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 555-569.
    7. Palea, Vera, 2017. "Whither accounting research? A European view," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 59-73.
    8. Sandra Rousseau & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "Bibliometric Techniques And Their Use In Business And Economics Research," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1428-1451, December.
    9. Pajić, Dejan, 2015. "On the stability of citation-based journal rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 990-1006.

    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:21:y:2012:i:3:p:199-203. 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.