Neufeld, J; von Ins, M. 2011. Informed peer review and uninformed bibliometrics?. RESEARCH EVALUATION 20 (1): 31-46, Sp. Iss. SI

[Eugene Garfield]

Neufeld, J; von Ins, M. 2011. Informed peer review and uninformed 
bibliometrics?. RESEARCH EVALUATION 20 (1): 31-46, Sp. Iss. SI..

Author Full Name(s): Neufeld, Joerg; von Ins, Markus
Language: English
Document Type: Article
KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE; RELIABILITY

Abstract: Recent literature on issues relevant to bibliometric indicator relations 
and peer review discusses whether bibliometric indicators can predict the 
success of research grant applications. For example, Van den Besselaar and 
Leydesdorff (2009) reported a higher average number of publications/citations 
for the group of approved applicants than for the rejected applicants (section 
Social and Behavioral Sciences of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific 
Research [NOW], MaGW). However, this difference disappears or even reverses 
when the group of 275 successful applicants was compared only to the best 
275 rejected applicants. Given these findings, we have continued our analyses 
of publication data of applicants for the Emmy Noether-Programme (ENP) 
provided by the German Research Foundation. First, we compared the group of 
actual ENP applicants to a sample of potential applicants, which revealed a 
'lack of low performers' among the actual ENP applicants. Furthermore, we 
conducted discriminant analyses to predict funding decisions on the basis of 
several bibliometric indicators.

Addresses: [Neufeld, Joerg; von Ins, Markus] Inst Res Informat & Qual 
Assurance IFQ, D-53175 Bonn, Germany
Reprint Address: Neufeld, J, Inst Res Informat & Qual Assurance IFQ, 
Godesberger Allee 90, D-53175 Bonn, Germany.

E-mail Address: neufeld at forschungsinfo.de
ISSN: 0958-2029
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876382
URL (not open access): 
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/rev/2011/00000020/00000001
/art00004