IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v8y1999i1p47-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Grant Lewison
  • Robert Cottrell
  • Diane Dixon

Abstract

The Wellcome Trust has been using bibliometrics for the last three years to inform the panel that makes decisions on longer-term research grants in neurosciences. These compare an applicant's publications with those of a handful of scientific peers, and citations to these papers compared with a norm group in the applicant's subfield. This paper reports three surveys, two of panel members and one of applicants, to determine their knowledge and views of bibliometrics and of which indicators were the most useful. More than two-thirds of the respondents were in favour of using bibliometrics. They considered citation scores and journal-impact category rankings as being the most helpful. The panel has now decided to continue using bibliometric indicators but to simplify the analysis to make it more cost-effective. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant Lewison & Robert Cottrell & Diane Dixon, 1999. "Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 47-52, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:47-52
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154499781777621
    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. Grant Lewison, 2004. "James Bond and citations to his books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 311-320, March.
    2. Rodrigo Costas & María Bordons, 2008. "Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 267-288, November.
    3. Salil Gunashekar & Steven Wooding & Susan Guthrie, 2017. "How do NIHR peer review panels use bibliometric information to support their decisions?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1813-1835, September.

    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:8:y:1999:i:1:p:47-52. 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.