Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of expert judgement of research performance

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between indicators of and expert judgement of, research performance were compared in the context of mission oriented pharmaceutical research. Expert judgment is very highly correlated with measures of publication activity, much more so than with very plausible measures of research output and research quality. Furthermore, expert judgement appears to be an additive function of publication size (another name for which might be visibility) and publication quality, with the principal component being size/visibility. These results are very similar to those found byAnderson, Narin, andMcAllister in the context of academic research, but these findings emerge from a context which allows other variables to compete in predicting expert judgement, and are therefore to that degree more robuts. In addition this study finds a clear pattern of subject specificity, which implies that visibility is a function of the judge's subject field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R. C. ANDERSON, F. NARIN, P. McALLISTER, “Publication Ratings versus Peer Ratings of Universities”,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29 No. 3 1978) 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. D. ROOSE, C. J. ANDERSON,A Rating of Graduate Programs, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. M. CARTTER,An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C.

  4. Science Citation Index, Philadelphia, Pa., Institute for Scientific Information, 1961 to date, yearly.

  5. F. NARIN,Evaluative Bibliometrics, Computer Horizons, Cherry Hill, N.J., 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. SCHWARTZMAN,Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. McVICKER,New Drug Development Study—Final Report, Internal Document of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, March 1972.

  8. P. de HAEN,New Products Parade—Annual Review of the New Drugs, de Haen Inc., New York, 1954 to date, yearly.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. WINDHOLE, Ed.,The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals and Drugs, Ninth Edition, Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, N.J., 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Innovative Activity in the Pharmaceutical Industry, National Economic Development Office, London, England, HMSO, 1973.

  11. N. H. NIE, et al,SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Second Edition McGraw Hill, New York, 1975, p. 353.

    Google Scholar 

  12. H. G. SMALL, “Co-Citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship Between Two Documents”,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 No. 4, August (1973) 265–269.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B. C. GRIFFITH, H. G. SMALL, J. S. STONEHILL, S. DYE, The Structure of Scientific Literature. 2. Toward a Macro- and Microstructure for Science,Science Studies 4 (1974) 339–365.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Library Service, Columbia University, 10027, New York, NY, USA

    M. E. D. Koenig

Authors
  1. M. E. D. Koenig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koenig, M.E.D. Determinants of expert judgement of research performance. Scientometrics 4, 361–378 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02135122

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02135122

Keywords

Search

Navigation