Research Performance Indications in the University Sector

Bibliometric tools of analysis are becoming increasingly common as means of measuring the research output of university departments. This paper provides a critical review of these techniques. It is concluded that such methods may profitably be used to enhance our understanding of the optimal research environment within each subject area. However, their ability to measure performance is extremely limited.

[1]  Allan M. Cartter,et al.  An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education , 1966 .

[2]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Assessing Basic Research: The Case of the Isaac Newton Telescope , 1983 .

[3]  B. Hirsch,et al.  Economics Departmental Rankings: Comment [Economics Departmental Rankings: Research Incentives, Constraints, and Efficiency] , 1984 .

[4]  Larue Guyer,et al.  Publications of men and women psychologists: Do women publish less? , 1973 .

[5]  B. N. Meltzer,et al.  The Productivity of Social Scientists , 1949, American Journal of Sociology.

[6]  J. H. Noble,et al.  Peer review: quality control of applied social research. , 1974, Science.

[7]  P. Davis,et al.  Faculty Ratings of Major Economics Departments by Citations , 1984 .

[8]  A. Bayer,et al.  Some Correlates of a Citation Measure of Productivity in Science , 1966 .

[9]  J. Margolis,et al.  Citation Indexing and Evaluation of Scientific Papers , 1967, Science.

[10]  H. Moed,et al.  The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance , 1985 .

[11]  The Case of the Disappearing Caveat: A Critique of Irvine and Martin's Methodology , 1985 .

[12]  M. Moravcsik,et al.  Some Results on the Function and Quality of Citations , 1975 .

[13]  Harold Maurice Collins,et al.  The Possibilities of Science Policy , 1985 .

[14]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Publication ratings versus peer ratings of universities , 1978, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[15]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Evaluating the Evaluators: A Reply to Our Critics , 1985 .

[16]  J. Krige,et al.  A Critique of Irvine and Martin's Methodology for Evaluating Big Science , 1985 .

[17]  H. F. Moed,et al.  Critical Remarks on Irvine and Martin's Methodology for Evaluating Scientific Performance , 1985 .

[18]  D. Crane.  Scientists at major and minor universities: a study of productivity and recognition. , 1965, American sociological review.

[19]  A. Porter.  Citation Analysis: Queries and Caveats , 1977 .

[20]  D. Dieks,et al.  Differences in Impact of Scientific Publications: Some Indices Derived from a Citation Analysis , 1976 .

[21]  Michael J. Moravcsik.  Measures of scientific growth , 1973 .

[22]  D. Croom,et al.  Dangers in the Use of the Science Citation Index , 1970, Nature.

[23]  S. M. Lawani.  Citation Analysis and the Quality of Scientific Productivity , 1977 .

[24]  J. R. Cole,et al.  The Ortega Hypothesis , 1972, Science.

[25]  John J. Seater,et al.  Publishing Performance: Departmental and Individual , 1978 .

[26]  A. Roe,et al.  Changes in scientific activities with age. , 1965, Science.

[27]  J. G. Manis,et al.  Some Academic Influences Upon Publication Productivity , 1951 .

[28]  Duncan Lindsey,et al.  Production and Citation Measures in the Sociology of Science: The Problem of Multiple Authorship , 1980 .

[29]  B. Martin,et al.  Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy , 1983 .

[30]  S. Liebowitz,et al.  Assessing the Relative Impacts of Economic Journals , 1984 .

[31]  E Garfield,et al.  "Science Citation Index"--A New Dimension in Indexing. , 1964, Science.

[32]  E. Garfield.  Citation Indexing for Studying Science , 1970, Nature.

[33]  G. Johnes,et al.  The employability of new graduates: a study of differences between UK universities , 1987 .

[34]  P. Graves,et al.  Economics Departmental Rankings: Research Incentives, Constraints, and Efficiency , 1982 .