IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v16y2007i2p93-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Thed N van Leeuwen

Abstract

This paper presents a model describing the various possibilities in the application of bibliometric techniques in evaluation processes. The model distinguishes between the goals and functions of a bibliometric analysis, and clearly indicates the limits of the various bibliometric approaches. In the so-called top-down or bottom-up approaches, the importance of verification of publication material is indicated. Another important feature of the paper is the description of the problem of the interpretation of the relationship between on the one hand organizational structures, and on the other hand fields of science, in the light of the two main approaches in bibliometric studies. Finally the paper contains a number of case-study examples of the model described. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Thed N van Leeuwen, 2007. "Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 93-105, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:93-105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820207X227529
    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. Thed N. Leeuwen & Erik Wijk & Paul F. Wouters, 2016. "Bibliometric analysis of output and impact based on CRIS data: a case study on the registered output of a Dutch university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Selçuk Bilir & Ersin Göğüş & Özgecan Önal & Nazlı Derya Öztürkmen & Talar Yontan, 2013. "Research performance of Turkish astronomers in the period of 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 477-489, November.
    3. Michael Gowanlock & Rich Gazan, 2013. "Assessing researcher interdisciplinarity: a case study of the University of Hawaii NASA Astrobiology Institute," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 133-161, January.
    4. Nicolás Robinson-García & Clara Calero-Medina, 2014. "What do university rankings by fields rank? Exploring discrepancies between the organizational structure of universities and bibliometric classifications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1955-1970, March.
    5. Linda Reijnhoudt & Rodrigo Costas & Ed Noyons & Katy Börner & Andrea Scharnhorst, 2014. "‘Seed + expand’: a general methodology for detecting publication oeuvres of individual researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1403-1417, November.
    6. Mallig, Nicolai, 2010. "A relational database for bibliometric analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 564-580.
    7. Christoph Neuhaus & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(2), pages 219-229, February.
    8. Thed Leeuwen & Rodrigo Costas & Clara Calero-Medina & Martijn Visser, 2013. "The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 817-828, May.

    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:2:p:93-105. 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.