IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v106y2016i2d10.1007_s11192-015-1815-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Data collection and use in research funding and performing organisations. General outlines and first results of a project launched by Science Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfgang Glänzel

    (KU Leuven)

  • Raphael Beck

    (Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS))

  • Katrin Milzow

    (Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF))

  • Stig Slipersæter

    (Research Council of Norway (RCN))

  • Gábor Tóth

    (Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA))

  • Michał Kołodziejski

    (National Science Centre (NCN))

  • Pei-Shan Chi

    (KU Leuven)

Abstract

A work strand planned by the Science Europe Working Group on Research Policy and Programme Evaluation aims at mapping the state of affairs in data collection and their use at European funding and research organisations. In particular, the project identifies and proposes solutions for issues experienced by the Member Organisations (MO) regarding collection, standardisation and treatment of data related to the analysis and ex-post evaluation of activities funded or performed by MOs. This is implemented through a survey sent to the MOs. The survey was analysed with special attention to the particular needs of funding and performing organisations. On the basis of the results and the discussion among the work strand members and within the WG, we draw a preliminary set of conclusions to produce guidance on relevant topics, including researcher and funding identification, potential, properties and limitations of data and indicators that are used in the context of measurement of research output and its assessment, classification systems used in sciences systems including their various types and issues of availability, confidentiality and harmonisation of data and indicators. Feedback from such discussions will be used to identify areas for further action by Science Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfgang Glänzel & Raphael Beck & Katrin Milzow & Stig Slipersæter & Gábor Tóth & Michał Kołodziejski & Pei-Shan Chi, 2016. "Data collection and use in research funding and performing organisations. General outlines and first results of a project launched by Science Europe," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 825-835, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1815-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1815-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1815-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1815-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Antonia Gogoglou & Antonis Sidiropoulos & Dimitrios Katsaros & Yannis Manolopoulos, 2017. "The fractal dimension of a citation curve: quantifying an individual’s scientific output using the geometry of the entire curve," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1751-1774, June.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    3. M. D. Ribeiro & S. M. R. Vasconcelos, 2018. "Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 719-734, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    2. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    3. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Alexander Kalgin & Olga Kalgina & Anna Lebedeva, 2019. "Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    5. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    6. Lin Hu & Qinghai Chen & Tingting Yang & Chuanjian Yi & Jing Chen, 2024. "Visualization and Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Seafood Cold Chain Logistics Based on CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and RStudio Bibliometrix," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, July.
    7. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    8. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    9. Alexandre López-Borrull & Mari Vállez & Candela Ollé & Mario Pérez-Montoro, 2021. "Publisher Transparency among Communications and Library and Information Science Journals: Analysis and Recommendations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Shahd Al-Janabi & Lee Wei Lim & Luca Aquili, 2021. "Development of a tool to accurately predict UK REF funding allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8049-8062, September.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2023. "Correlating article citedness and journal impact: an empirical investigation by field on a large-scale dataset," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1877-1894, March.
    12. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    13. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    14. Lanu Kim & Jason H. Portenoy & Jevin D. West & Katherine W. Stovel, 2020. "Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines and preprint archives," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1218-1226, October.
    15. Erich Battistin & Marco Ovidi, 2022. "Rising Stars: Expert Reviews and Reputational Yardsticks in the Research Excellence Framework," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(356), pages 830-848, October.
    16. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    17. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    18. Antonin Mac'e, 2017. "The Limits of Citation Counts," Papers 1711.02695, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    19. Branca Barbosa & José Duarte Santos, 2023. "Bibliometric Study on the Social Shopping Concept," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Carlo D'Ippoliti, 2021. "“Many‐Citedness”: Citations Measure More Than Just Scientific Quality," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1271-1301, December.

    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:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1815-z. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.