IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/86618.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Research Evaluation, Bibliometric Indicators and Impact on Knowledge Development

Author

Listed:
  • Fernandes, Graca
  • Margarida, Lopes

Abstract

With increased globalization and international competition among research centers and universities, bibliometrics regained a new élan. As a matter of fact it became the most important criteria – sometimes the only one - used for the evaluation of scientific papers and thereby for the faculty’s classification and progression in the academic and research careers. Accreditation procedures and the building of international rankings reinforced this trend as well as the major role played by reference repertoires. This self-feeding and circular process deserves a deeper insight mostly because it generates important knowledge waste. This is so because non-English speaking scientific communities usually face meaningful obstacles to access to the abovementioned repertoires. And accordingly, their scientific papers risk becoming unknown or underutilized even though they develop matters and topics which are relevant for their authors’ societies. At the same time, progression in academic or research careers go in parallel with the reproduction and transmission of official knowledge and generally neglect alternative thinking. In this paper we shed light on these issues. After a brief literature review, we analyze the situation of a Portuguese higher education research institution under both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis which results confirm the above referred main trends.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernandes, Graca & Margarida, Lopes, 2017. "Research Evaluation, Bibliometric Indicators and Impact on Knowledge Development," MPRA Paper 86618, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:86618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86618/1/MPRA_paper_86618.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    2. repec:mod:depeco:0020 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. David I Stern, 2014. "High-Ranked Social Science Journal Articles Can Be Identified from Early Citation Information," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Zacchia, Giulia, 2016. "Segregation or homologation? Gender differences in recent Italian economic thought," MPRA Paper 72279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    5. Maietta, Ornella Wanda, 2015. "Determinants of R&D University-Frim Collaboration and Its Impact on Innovation: a Perspective from the Italian Food and Drink Industry," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 225668, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. 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.
    7. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 462-477.
    8. Haddawy, Peter & Hassan, Saeed-Ul & Asghar, Awais & Amin, Sarah, 2016. "A comprehensive examination of the relation of three citation-based journal metrics to expert judgment of journal quality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 162-173.
    9. Lina M. Cortés & Andrés Mora-Valencia & Javier Perote, 2016. "The productivity of top researchers: a semi-nonparametric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 891-915, November.
    10. Daniele Checchi & Alberto Ciolfi & Gianni De Fraja & Irene Mazzotta & Stefano Verzillo, 2021. "Have you Read This? An Empirical Comparison of the British REF Peer Review and the Italian VQR Bibliometric Algorithm," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(352), pages 1107-1129, October.
    11. Francesco Giovanni Avallone & Alberto Quagli & Paola Ramassa, 2022. "Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(2), pages 5-34.
    12. Tullio Jappelli & Carmela Anna Nappi & Roberto Torrini, 2015. "Research Quality and Gender Gap in Research Assessment," CSEF Working Papers 418, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Leonardo Grilli, 2024. "The role of non-scientific factors vis-à-vis the quality of publications in determining their scholarly impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 5003-5019, August.
    14. Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti & Tommaso Lando, 2017. "A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1415-1448, June.
    15. Battistin, Erich & Ovidi, Marco, 2017. "Rising Stars," IZA Discussion Papers 11198, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. V. A. Traag & L. Waltman, 2019. "Systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK REF," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
    17. Thor-Erik Sandberg Hanssen & Finn Jørgensen & Berner Larsen, 2018. "The relation between the quality of research, researchers’ experience, and their academic environment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 933-950, March.
    18. Pisár Peter & Šipikal Miroslav, 2017. "Negative Effects of Performance Based Funding of Universities: The Case of Slovakia," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 171-189, December.
    19. Stephan B. Bruns & David I. Stern, 2016. "Research assessment using early citation information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 917-935, August.
    20. Pilonato, Silvia & Monfardini, Patrizio, 2020. "Performance measurement systems in higher education: How levers of control reveal the ambiguities of reforms," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Key Words: bibliometrics; accreditation repertoires; academic and research careers; waste of knowledge.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • I25 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Education and Economic Development

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:86618. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.