IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i1p31-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Informed peer review and uninformed bibliometrics?

Author

Listed:
  • Jörg Neufeld
  • Markus von Ins

Abstract

Recent literature on issues relevant to bibliometric indicator relations and peer review discusses whether bibliometric indicators can predict the success of research grant applications. For example, Van den Besselaar and Leydesdorff (2009) reported a higher average number of publications/citations for the group of approved applicants than for the rejected applicants (section Social and Behavioral Sciences of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [NOW], MaGW). However, this difference disappears or even reverses when the group of 275 successful applicants was compared only to the best 275 rejected applicants. Given these findings, we have continued our analyses of publication data of applicants for the Emmy Noether-Programme (ENP) provided by the German Research Foundation. First, we compared the group of actual ENP applicants to a sample of potential applicants, which revealed a ‘lack of low performers’ among the actual ENP applicants. Furthermore, we conducted discriminant analyses to predict funding decisions on the basis of several bibliometric indicators. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jörg Neufeld & Markus von Ins, 2011. "Informed peer review and uninformed bibliometrics?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 31-46, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:1:p:31-46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X12941371876382
    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. van den Besselaar, Peter & Sandström, Ulf, 2015. "Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 826-838.
    2. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Luiza Maria Capanema & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2015. "What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1167-1188, February.
    3. Tobias Opthof & Loet Leydesdorff, 2011. "A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 1011-1016, September.
    4. Claartje J Vinkenburg & Sara Connolly & Stefan Fuchs & Channah Herschberg & Brigitte Schels, 2020. "Mapping career patterns in research: A sequence analysis of career histories of ERC applicants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, July.

    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:20:y:2011:i:1:p:31-46. 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.