IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i1p73-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Profiles and beyond: constructing consensus on measuring research output in communication sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Carole Probst
  • Benedetto Lepori
  • Daniela De Filippo
  • Diana Ingenhoff

Abstract

Measuring research output in fields of social sciences and humanities requires particular attention to the specificities of the field, but also to national and cultural contexts. This paper presents an approach adopted in a project constructing an instrument for measuring research output in communication sciences in Switzerland in collaboration with the scientific community. The concept of profiles, allowing combination of output in different dimensions, is central and proved to be fruitful for the discussion of the instrument and its acceptance in the field. Opportunities, challenges and limitations as well as the way in which they were approached and/or overcome are addressed and further steps to be taken are discussed. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Carole Probst & Benedetto Lepori & Daniela De Filippo & Diana Ingenhoff, 2011. "Profiles and beyond: constructing consensus on measuring research output in communication sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 73-88, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:1:p:73-88
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X12941371876102
    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. Benedetto Lepori & Michael Wise & Diana Ingenhoff & Alexander Buhmann, 2016. "The dynamics of university units as a multi‐level process. Credibility cycles and resource dependencies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2279-2301, December.

    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:73-88. 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.