Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data

Linda Butler

Research Evaluation, 2001, vol. 10, issue 1, 59-65

Abstract: Using research funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the classification of the grant that funded the research which led to the publication was contrasted with the use of a common proxy, journal set classification. Frequently, the two measures produce very similar results but major differences can occur. Acknowledgments data appear to accurately reflect a funding body's total research output, but lack the ability to identify individual funding schemes within such bodies. In contrast to the output funded by long-term grants, publications from research funded on a limited, three-year cycle exhibit a very fast publication turn-around — considerably faster than the often-quoted four years. The accuracy with which researchers report links between publications and the grants from which they emanate is examined. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Date: 2001
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154401781777141 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:rseval:v:10:y:2001:i:1:p:59-65

Access Statistics for this article

Research Evaluation is currently edited by Julia Melkers, Emanuela Reale and Thed van Leeuwen

More articles in Research Evaluation from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().