A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation

Abstract

Recent reductions in research budgets have led to the need for greater selectivity in resource allocation. Measures of past performance are still among the most promising means of deciding between competing interests. Bibliometry, the mea surement of scientific publications and of their impact on the scientific community, assessed by the citations they attract, provides a portfolio of indicators that can be combined to give a useful picture of recent research activity. In this state-of-the- art review the various methodologies that have been developed are outlined in terms of their strengths, weaknesses and par ticular applications. The present limitations of science indica tors in research evaluation are considered and some future directions for developments in techniques are suggested.

A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co‐word analysis

“…These methods are variously known as co-word analysis (Callon, Law, & Rip, 1986;Whittaker, 1989), citation mapping (Healey, Rothman, & Hoch, 1986;Small, 1999), and bibliometric analysis, bibliometric modeling, or bibliometric mapping (Crouch, Irvine, & Martin, 1986;Franklin & Johnston, 1988;King, 1987;Noyons, 2001Noyons, , 2005. In addition to the usefulness of these methods for evaluation and measurement of science, they allow for the creation of visual maps that represent the scholarly activities and the relationships that exist in a given domain.…”

The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities

“…Bibliometrics and other quantitative methods are being used increasingly in research evaluation because of the growing concern about accountability of public spending in science (King, 1987;Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2001). While the validity and appropriateness of bibliometric methods are largely accepted in the natural sciences, the situation is more complex in the case of the social sciences and humanities.…”

Learning from the UK’s research impact assessment exercise: a case study of a retrospective impact assessment exercise and questions for the future

“…2 However, there are many ways to demonstrate the impact of research, and more traditional methods range from analysing the economic returns from research (Buxton et al 2004;Glover et al 2014;HERG et al 2008), conducting sophisticated bibliometric assessments to trace knowledge outputs and flows (Martin and Irvine 1983;King 1987;and May 1997), 3 and methods which look at the nature of knowledge interactions and the relative productivity which emerges (Spaapen and van Drooge 2011;Molas-Gallart and Tang 2011). With the growth of the field of research impact evaluation in recent years, newer methods for assessing impact are now beginning to also emerge, including forms of data mining and analysis of multiple, alternative metrics, for understanding how and by whom research is being used (Priem et al 2012).…”