IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/efisdi/102017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Indikatorikstudien – Fortentwicklung und optionale Untersuchungen: Hochschulbildung und -finanzierung

Author

Listed:
  • Dehio, Jochen
  • Rothgang, Michael

Abstract

Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen tragen durch ihre Aktivitäten in Lehre und Forschung direkt oder indirekt zum Innovationsgeschehen bei. Feedbackmechanismen zwischen der Grundlagenforschung, anwendungsorientierten Forschungsaktivitäten und der Entwicklung von Neuerungen gewinnen vor dem Hintergrund, dass der globale Wettbewerb eine permanente Neu- bzw. Weiterentwicklung von Produkten und Prozessen erfordert, immer mehr an Bedeutung. Untersuchungen zur Positionierung der deutschen Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen im Innovationsgeschehen aus nationaler Perspektive und im internationalen Vergleich profitieren dabei von den erfolgreichen Bemühungen nationaler und internationaler Organisationen, international vergleichbare Indikatoren bereitzustellen. Dies führte zu einer erheblichen Verbesserung der Datenlage, die es zunehmend ermöglicht, neue Trends nachzuzeichnen und zu analysieren. Im Folgenden werden die zentralen Ergebnisse einer Auswertung von Indikatoren zur Rolle der Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen im Innovationsgeschehen vorgestellt. Der Analysezeitraum geht, soweit dies aufgrund der Datenlage möglich ist, bis zum Jahr 1995 zurück. Neben einer Untersuchung der nationalen Entwicklung wurden der Stand und die Entwicklung der Rolle von Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen auch im internationalen Vergleich analysiert.

Suggested Citation

  • Dehio, Jochen & Rothgang, Michael, 2017. "Indikatorikstudien – Fortentwicklung und optionale Untersuchungen: Hochschulbildung und -finanzierung," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 10-2017, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:efisdi:102017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/156651/1/StuDIS_2017-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Henk F. Moed & Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2001. "Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 335-346, 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. Goodall, Amanda H., 2009. "Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1079-1092, September.
    2. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    3. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    4. Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 281-296, March.
    5. Li, Jiang & Qiao, Lili & Li, Wenyuze & Jin, Yidan, 2014. "Chinese-language articles are not biased in citations: Evidences from Chinese-English bilingual journals in Scopus and Web of Science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 912-916.
    6. Maziar Montazerian & Edgar Dutra Zanotto & Hellmut Eckert, 2019. "A new parameter for (normalized) evaluation of H-index: countries as a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1065-1078, March.
    7. Murat Perit Çakır & Cengiz Acartürk & Oğuzhan Alaşehir & Canan Çilingir, 2015. "A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 813-848, June.
    8. Yutao Sun & Seamus Grimes, 2016. "The emerging dynamic structure of national innovation studies: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 17-40, January.
    9. Zhigao Liu & Yimei Yin & Weidong Liu & Michael Dunford, 2015. "Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of innovation systems research: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 135-158, April.
    10. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    11. Gennaro Guida, 2018. "Italian Economics Departments’ Scientific Research Performance: Comparison between VQR and ASN Methodologies," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(9), pages 182-182, August.
    12. Hossein Javadi & Seyed Soheil Mousavi Ajarostaghi & Marc A. Rosen & Mohsen Pourfallah, 2018. "A Comprehensive Review of Backfill Materials and Their Effects on Ground Heat Exchanger Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    13. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2020. "Knowledge spillovers: Does the geographic proximity effect decay over time? A discipline-level analysis, accounting for cognitive proximity, with and without self-citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    14. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2009. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view," Working Papers hal-00877050, HAL.
    15. Rafols, Ismael & Ciarli, Tommaso & Chavarro, Diego, 2015. "Under-reporting research relevant to local needs in the global south. Database biases in the representation of knowledge on rice," SocArXiv 3kf9d, Center for Open Science.
    16. Fairclough, Ruth & Thelwall, Mike, 2015. "National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 845-859.
    17. Claude Robert & Concepción S. Wilson & Jean-François Gaudy & Charles-Daniel Arreto, 2006. "A snapshot of EU publications in sleep research: A scientometric survey," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 385-405, June.
    18. José María Gómez-Sancho & María Jesús Mancebón-Torrubia, 2009. "The evaluation of scientific production: Towards a neutral impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 435-458, November.
    19. Tanel Hirv, 2022. "The interplay of the size of the research system, ways of collaboration, level, and method of funding in determining bibliometric outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1295-1316, March.
    20. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:efisdi:102017. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.e-fi.de/index.php?id=1&L=1 .

    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.