IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v47y2000i2d10.1023_a1005699312530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientometric Studies and Their Role in Research Policy of Two Research Councils in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Ed J. Rinia

    (Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM))

Abstract

In the past 30 years various scientometric analyses have provided input data for research policy objectives of research institutions in the Netherlands. In this article we discuss several pioneering studies performed on behalf of the research councils for physics (FOM) and technical sciences (STW), which have played an important role in the early development of scientometrics in this country. The motives for these studies, the results and the influence on research policy are discussed. Relations to present themes in scientometric investigations are drawn.

Suggested Citation

  • Ed J. Rinia, 2000. "Scientometric Studies and Their Role in Research Policy of Two Research Councils in the Netherlands," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 363-378, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:47:y:2000:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1005699312530
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1005699312530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1005699312530
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1005699312530?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chang, Hans & Dieks, Dennis, 1976. "The Dutch output of publications in physics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 380-396, October.
    2. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
    3. Rinia, E. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N. & van Vuren, H. G. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1998. "Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 95-107, May.
    4. F C H D van den Beemt & C le Pair, 1991. "Grading the grain: Consistent evaluation of research proposals," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 3-10, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamid Bouabid, 2014. "Science and technology metrics for research policy evaluation: some insights from a Moroccan experience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 899-915, October.

    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. van Raan, A. F. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N., 2002. "Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 611-632, May.
    2. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    3. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2018. "Research assessment by percentile-based double rank analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 315-329.
    4. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2011. "The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 275-291.
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.
    6. Abramo, Giovanni, 2018. "Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 590-597.
    7. Emanuela Reale & Anna Barbara & Antonio Costantini, 2006. "Peer review for the evaluation of the academic research: the Italian experience," CERIS Working Paper 200615, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    8. Jiancheng Guan & Nan Ma, 2007. "A bibliometric study of China’s semiconductor literature compared with other major asian countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 107-124, January.
    9. Hui-Zhen Fu & Kun-Yang Chuang & Ming-Huang Wang & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2011. "Characteristics of research in China assessed with Essential Science Indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 841-862, September.
    10. Takanori Ida & Naomi Fukuzawa, 2013. "Effects of large-scale research funding programs: a Japanese case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1253-1273, March.
    11. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2021. "The scholarly impact of private sector research: A multivariate analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    12. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    13. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 286-291.
    14. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    15. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    16. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    17. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    18. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 529-541.
    19. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    20. Ronald N. Kostoff, 2002. "Citation analysis of research performer quality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(1), pages 49-71, 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:spr:scient:v:47:y:2000:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1005699312530. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.