IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v10y2001i3p195-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy

Author

Listed:
  • T N van Leeuwen
  • L J van der Wurff
  • A F J van Raan

Abstract

The advantages and disadvantages of bibliometric methods (based on different databases) in research assessment in relation to funding policy are discussed. The main goal of the study is to answer the question raised by two major funding organizations in the Netherlands, whether or not they funded the ‘best’ research in their fields of medical science. On the one hand, our empirical data of these two case studies in medical research clearly show that field-delineation is a major problem in the process of research evaluation, as a basis for funding policy. However, on the other hand, the applied methodology proves the utility of bibliometric instruments in the exploration of fields of science, and particularly in relation to the search for quality in research groups. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • T N van Leeuwen & L J van der Wurff & A F J van Raan, 2001. "The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 195-201, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:10:y:2001:i:3:p:195-201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154401781777015
    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. Cozzarin, Brian P., 2008. "Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 284-298, August.
    2. Patricia Laurens & Michel Zitt & Elise Bassecoulard, 2010. "Delineation of the genomics field by hybrid citation-lexical methods: interaction with experts and validation process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 647-662, March.
    3. Philippe Jeannin & Joëlle Devillard, 2005. "Implementing relevant disciplinary evaluations in the social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(1), pages 121-144, March.
    4. Carmen López-Illescas & Ed C.M. Noyons & Martijn S. Visser & Félix De Moya-Anegón & Henk F. Moed, 2009. "Expansion of scientific journal categories using reference analysis: How can it be done and does it make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 473-490, June.
    5. Yuen-Hsien Tseng & Chun-Yen Chang & M. Shane Tutwiler & Ming-Chao Lin & James P. Barufaldi, 2013. "A scientometric analysis of the effectiveness of Taiwan’s educational research projects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1141-1166, June.
    6. John Rigby, 2013. "Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 57-73, January.
    7. Hamid Bouabid & Mohamed Dalimi & Zayer ElMajid, 2011. "Impact evaluation of the voluntary early retirement policy on research and technology outputs of the faculties of science in Morocco," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 125-132, January.

    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:10:y:2001:i:3:p:195-201. 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.