ArticlePloS one2020
Professional standards in bibliometric research evaluation? A meta-evaluation of European assessment practice 2005-2019.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of publication ranking specifications on publication strategy and academic careers in business administration.PloS one · 2025Article
- Field size as a predictor of "excellence." The selection of subject fields in Germany's Excellence Initiative.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- AI and business management: Tracking future research agenda through bibliometric network analysis.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Quantifying progress in research topics across nations.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Bibliometric Analysis of Research Articles on Virtual Reality in the Field of Pain Medicine Published from 1993 to 2022.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- The role of Israeli researchers in the scientific literature regarding COVID-19 vaccines.Israel journal of health policy research · 2022Article
- Current Status and Trends in Research on Caries Diagnosis: A Bibliometric Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine derived from a systematic search.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Article
- Therapeutic Effects of Melatonin on Ocular Diseases: Knowledge Map and Perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Bibliometric Reports for Institutions: Best Practices in a Responsible Metrics Scenario.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Interpreting Bibliometric Data.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite growing demand for practicable methods of research evaluation, the use of bibliometric indicators remains controversial. This paper examines performance assessment practice in Europe-first, identifying the most commonly used bibliometric methods and, second, identifying the actors who have defined wide-spread practices. The framework of this investigation is Abbott's theory of professions, and I argue that indicator-based research assessment constitutes a potential jurisdiction for both individual experts and expert organizations. This investigation was conducted using a search methodology that yielded 138 evaluation studies from 21 EU countries, covering the period 2005 to 2019. Structured content analysis revealed the following findings: (1) Bibliometric research assessment is most frequently performed in the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom. (2) The Web of Science (WoS) is the dominant database used for public research assessment in Europe. (3) Expert organizations invest in the improvement of WoS citation data, and set technical standards with regards to data quality. (4) Citation impact is most frequently assessed with reference to international scientific fields. (5) The WoS classification of science fields retained its function as a de facto reference standard for research performance assessment. A detailed comparison of assessment practices between five dedicated organizations and other individual bibliometric experts suggests that corporate ownership and limited access to the most widely used citation databases have had a restraining effect on the development and diffusion of professional bibliometric methods during this period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.