IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v13y2004i2p76-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Diana Hicks
  • Hiroyuki Tomizawa
  • Yoshiko Saitoh
  • Shinichi Kobayashi

Abstract

Research evaluation in the USA historically tended to rely more heavily on peer review than on bibliometric method, but interest in quantitative methods including bibliometrics appears to be growing. In this paper, we discuss the use of bibliometric techniques of research evaluation by the US federal government over the past decade. Within the past decade, commentators have pointed to something of a rebirth of interest in evaluation along with pressure on agencies to develop quantitative indicators. Evaluation of economic and societal outcomes of research has become a priority. Bibliometric method continues to evolve in response to these needs and therefore often finds application in evaluations of federal agency research. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana Hicks & Hiroyuki Tomizawa & Yoshiko Saitoh & Shinichi Kobayashi, 2004. "Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 76-86, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:13:y:2004:i:2:p:76-86
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154404781776446
    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. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2008. "Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 173-182.
    2. repec:spr:scient:v:78:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-007-2005-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2016. "iSEER: an intelligent automatic computer system for scientific evaluation of researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 477-498, May.
    4. Diana Hicks & Julia Melkers, 2013. "Bibliometrics as a tool for research evaluation," Chapters,in: Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 11, pages 323-349 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    6. David Popp, 2012. "The Role of Technological Change in Green Growth," NBER Working Papers 18506, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. repec:spr:scient:v:86:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0271-z is not listed on IDEAS

    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:13:y:2004:i:2:p:76-86. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.