IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v17y2008i1p45-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research evaluation per discipline: a peer-review method and its outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • N Rons
  • A De Bruyn
  • J Cornelis

Abstract

This paper describes the method for ex-post peer-review evaluation per research discipline used at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the outcomes obtained. Pertinent advice and responses at different levels benefit research quality, competitivity and visibility. Imposed reflection and contacts modify the researcher's attitude and improve team strategies. Deeper insights and data sets on research disciplines and extracted general recommendations support the university management's policy decisions, instruments and guidelines. Comparisons with other assessments lead to a better understanding of possibilities and limitations of different evaluation processes. The described peer-review method can be applied systematically, yielding a complete overview, or on an ad hoc basis for a particular discipline, based on demands from research teams or on strategic or policy arguments. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • N Rons & A De Bruyn & J Cornelis, 2008. "Research evaluation per discipline: a peer-review method and its outcomes," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 45-57, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:17:y:2008:i:1:p:45-57
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820208X240208
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rahman, A.I.M. Jakaria & Guns, Raf & Rousseau, Ronald & Engels, Tim C.E., 2015. "Is the expertise of evaluation panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: A quantitative approach based on barycenters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 704-721.
    2. A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman & Raf Guns & Loet Leydesdorff & Tim C. E. Engels, 2016. "Measuring the match between evaluators and evaluees: cognitive distances between panel members and research groups at the journal level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1639-1663, December.
    3. Aymerich, Marta & Carrion, Carme & Gallo, Pedro & Garcia, Maria & López-Bermejo, Abel & Quesada, Miquel & Ramos, Rafel, 2012. "Measuring the payback of research activities: A feasible ex-post evaluation methodology in epidemiology and public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 505-510.
    4. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).

    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:oup:rseval:v:17:y:2008:i:1:p:45-57. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.