IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v9y2000i2p155-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

First evidence of serious language-bias in the use of citation analysis for the evaluation of national science systems

Author

Listed:
  • Th N van Leeuwen
  • H F Moed
  • R J W Tijssen
  • M S Visser
  • A F J van Raan

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Th N van Leeuwen & H F Moed & R J W Tijssen & M S Visser & A F J van Raan, 2000. "First evidence of serious language-bias in the use of citation analysis for the evaluation of national science systems," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 155-156, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:9:y:2000:i:2:p:155-156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154400781777359
    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. Cavalieri, Marina & Mangano, Alfia, 2009. "La valutazione della didattica e della ricerca medica: esperienze a confronto [Evaluation of medical teaching and research: a comparative analysis]," MPRA Paper 16095, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Maxim N. Kotsemir & Tatiana E. Kuznetsova & Elena G. Nasybulina & Anna G. Pikalova, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Multinational S&T Collaboration Priorities –The Case of Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 53/STI/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    3. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Henk F. Moed & Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2001. "Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 335-346, April.
    4. Shengli Ren & Ronald Rousseau, 2002. "International visibility of Chinese scientific journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 389-405, March.
    5. Maxim Kotsemir, 2012. "Dynamics of Russian and World Science through the Prism of International Publications," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 38-58.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Rong Tang, 2003. "Disciplinary and linguistic considerations for academic Web linking: An exploratory hyperlink mediated study with Mainland China and Taiwan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(1), pages 155-181, September.
    7. Grant Lewison & Valentina Markusova, 2011. "Female researchers in Russia: have they become more visible?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 139-152, October.
    8. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline S. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 606-617.
    9. repec:hig:journl:v:6:y:2012:i:1:p:38-58 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 281-296, March.
    11. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    12. Liming Liang & Ronald Rousseau & Zhen Zhong, 2013. "Non-English journals and papers in physics and chemistry: bias in citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 333-350, April.
    13. Li, Jiang & Qiao, Lili & Li, Wenyuze & Jin, Yidan, 2014. "Chinese-language articles are not biased in citations: Evidences from Chinese-English bilingual journals in Scopus and Web of Science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 912-916.

    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:9:y:2000:i:2:p:155-156. 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.