The question of how best to assess research performance is clearly of great concern. In December 2007, HEFCE launched a national consultation on the future of Research Assessment, proposing that a Research Excellence Framework replaces the current Research Assessment Exercise. Fundamentally the Research Excellence Framework involves a shift to metrics. Views on the effectiveness of metrics for assessing research are mixed, so in this report we seek to explore empirically the question of whether metrics based on citation counts are strongly correlated with peer review assessments of research quality. We use data from RAE 2001, covering all departments and all universities in the UK. At a more disaggregated level the data used in this study includes: 1 The individual submissions made to RAE 2001-a database of 203,743 research output records, one for each output submitted in RAE 2001. 2 The citation counts for each of the submitted items when they are journal articles (141,789 of the original 203,743 items). We have interrogated the ISA Web of Science and produced citation counts for every article included in RAE 2001 where data is available. This gives us citation counts for 112,201 publications (55.1% of the original 203,743 submitted items). 3 The actual RAE 2001 scores produced and published by HEFCE. We contrast these scores-which are based on peer review-with those that would have been produced had bibliometrics, based on citation counts, been used in RAE 2001. The findings of this analysis are: 1 Citation counts are a reasonable proxy for peer assessment in some subjects, such as Biological Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Chemistry and Psychology. 2 However, citation counts are a weak proxy for a large number of disciplines, including fields within Biomedicalrelated subjects and Engineering-related subjects. This is despite the fact that these subjects have good coverage in the Web of Science, in terms of the outputs submitted to RAE 2001.
This paper aims to improve our understanding of the attributes of academic researchers that influence the capacity to contribute to technical advance, by either adding to the pool of technological opportunities available to industry or engaging in the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities themselves. We investigate a number of factors associated with the skills developed by academic researchers. We find that
This paper investigates different methods of problem solving strategy-dubbed in this paper as "Search Strategy"-in the process of Product Innovation. It objects the basic assumption of current models of Product Innovation Process (PIP) proposed by previous literature which considers unrealistically that the product innovation's actors-the product innovators-are hyper-rationale, homogenous and non choice-restricted actors. In order to take into account the more realistic view of the product innovators-bounded rationale, heterogeneous and choice-restricted actors-, this paper proposes an alternative model of Product Innovation Process based on the Science of Cognitive Psychology. According to this framework, the options of Search Strategy available to each product innovator depend on certain cognitive abilities which the product innovator is able or not to use. To examine the validity of this theoretical framework, this paper investigates the phenomenon of the evolution of discovery methods in the Agrochemical lead discovery process. Data for this investigation is gathered through chronological product innovation survey from agrochemical patents data base and through publications index data base. Result from this investigation seems to confirm the above argument.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.