IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v18y1994i1p31-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Research Impact

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald N. Kostoff

    (Office of Naval Research)

Abstract

This article describes the use of peer review for federal research impact evaluation. For selected agencies, it covers peer review practices for proposed and existing programs. It shows that nearer-term research impacts typically play a more important role in the review outcome than longer-term impacts; however, they do not have quite the importance of team quality, research approach, or the research merit. Although advanced review processes can improve the efficiency of a review, three of the most important intangible factors for a high-quality peer review are motivation of the review leader, and competence and independence of the review team members. Although peer review in its broadest sense is the most widely used method in research selection, review, and expost assessment, it has its deficiencies, and there is no single method that provides a complete impact evaluation. The use of quantitative techniques such as bibliometrics to supplement peer review is an area ripe for exploitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald N. Kostoff, 1994. "Assessing Research Impact," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(1), pages 31-40, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:18:y:1994:i:1:p:31-40
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9401800104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X9401800104
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X9401800104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ormala, Erkki, 1989. "Nordic experiences of the evaluation of technical research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 333-342, December.
    2. Ronald N Kostoff & L Bradley Stanford, 1991. "Program funding profiles under budgetary constraints," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 37-46, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cozzens, Susan E., 1997. "The knowledge pool: Measurement challenges in evaluating fundamental research programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 77-89, February.
    2. Lee, Mushin & Son, Byoungho & Om, Kiyong, 1996. "Evaluation of national R&D projects in Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 805-818, August.
    3. Leonardo Sastoque Pinilla & Raúl Llorente Rodríguez & Nerea Toledo Gandarias & Luis Norberto López de Lacalle & Mahboobeh Ramezani Farokhad, 2019. "TRLs 5–7 Advanced Manufacturing Centres, Practical Model to Boost Technology Transfer in Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-14, September.

    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:sae:evarev:v:18:y:1994:i:1:p:31-40. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.