Bibliometrics as a Performance Measurement Tool for Research Evaluation: The Case of Research Funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada
Campbell, D. et al. (2010) Bibliometrics as a Performance Measurement Tool for Research Evaluation: The Case of Research Funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada, American Journal of Evaluation, 31 (1) : 66-83
This content is not available in the selected language.
As bibliometric indicators are objective, reliable, and cost-effective measures of peer-reviewed research outputs, they are expected to play an increasingly important role in research assessment/management. Recently, a bibliometric approach was developed and integrated within the evaluation framework of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC). This approach helped address the following questions that were difficult to answer objectively using alternative methods such as program documentation review and key informant interviews: (a) Has the NCIC peer-review process selected outstanding Canadian scientists in cancer research? (b) Have the NCIC grants contributed to increasing the scientific performance of supported researchers? (c) How do the NCIC-supported researchers compare to their neighbors supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute? Using the NCIC evaluation as a case study, this article demonstrates the usefulness of bibliometrics to address key evaluation questions and discusses its integration, along complementary indicators (e.g., peer ratings), in a practice-driven research evaluation continuum.
This content has been updated on June 2nd, 2017 at 11 h 55 min.