Abstract
This paper covers the differences between two separate bibliometric approaches, labelled ‘descriptive’ versus ‘evaluative’, or top down versus bottom up. The most important difference between these two approaches is found in the level of validity of the underlying research output. Whilst the publications in a top down approach, having a descriptive character, are collected by following general characteristics of these publications (such as country names, or fields), the consequence is that findings from such studies have a ‘meaning’ that is limited with respect to actual research assessment. On the other hand, in a bottom up approach the publications are collected from individual oeuvres of scientists, including a process of verification by the researchers involved. This procedure contributes significantly to the validity of the publication material, and consequently research assessment procedures can be based on the results of this type of bibliometric analyses. A strong focus in the paper will be on the actual application of bibliometric analysis within research assessment procedures, in particular within the UK and the Netherlands.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beller, F.K. (1999). Der Zusammenhang zwischen Index Medicus, dem Impact Factor und der deutschen Sprache. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 59, 53–56.
Geuna, A., Martin, B.R. (2003). University Research Evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva, 41, 277–304.
Haller, U., Hepp, H., Reinhold, E. (1997). Tötet der ‘Impact Factor’ die deutsche Sprache? Gynakologisch-geburtshilfliche Rundschau, 37, 117–118.
Herfarth, C., Schurmann, G., (1996). Deutsche klinische Zeitschriften und der Impact Factor. Chirurg 67, 297–299.
Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44, 193–215.
Jimenez-Contreras, E., Lopez-Cozar, E.D., Ruiz-Perez, R., Fernandez, V.M., (2002). Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research. Nature, 417, 898–898.
Kindermann G., (1999). Hat Deutsch noch Zukunft als Wissenschaftssprache? Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 59, 188–190.
KNAW Commission, chaired by Professor van Bemmel “Kwaliteit verplicht”, report. Amsterdam, 2000.
van Leeuwen T.N., Moed, H.F., Tijssen, R.J.W., Visser, M.S., van Raan, A.F.J., (2000). First evidence of serious language-bias in the use of citation analysis for the evaluation of National Science Systems. Research Evaluation, 9, 121–122.
van Leeuwen T.N., Moed, H.F., Tijssen, R.J.W., Visser, M.S., van Raan, A.F.J., (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51, 335–246.
van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., Moed, H.F., Nederhof, A.J., van Raan, A.F.J., (2003). The Holy Grail of Science Policy: exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57, 257–280.
Luwel, M., Moed, H.F., Nederhof, A.J., De Samblanx, V., Verbrugghen, K., van der Wurff, L.J., (1999). Towards indicators of research performance in the social sciences and humanities. An exploratory study in the fields of Law and Linguistics at Flemish Universities. Report of the Flemish Inter-University Council (V.L.I.R.), Brussels, Belgium /Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, the Netherlands / Ministry of the Flemish Community, Brussels, Belgium. V.L.I.R. Brussels, Belgium.
Moed H.F., Thesis, Leiden University, 1989.
Moed, H.F., De Bruin, R.E., van Leeuwen, T.N., (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33, 381–422.
Moed H.F., (2002). The impact factors debate: the ISI’s uses and limits. Nature, 415, 731–732.
Narin, F., (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics. The use of publications and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Computer Horizons, Inc., Cherry Hill, New Jersey, USA.
Nederhof, A.J. (1988) The validity and reliability of evaluation of scholarly performance. In A.F.J. van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies (pp. 193–228). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
NOWT, Science and Technology Indicators report 1994 (in Dutch).
NOWT, Science and Technology Indicators report 1996 (in Dutch).
NOWT, Science and Technology Indicators report 1998 (in Dutch).
NOWT, Science and Technology Indicators report 2000 (in Dutch).
NOWT, Science and Technology Indicators report 2003 (in Dutch).
OST, Science & Technologie Indicateurs — Edition 1992, Economica, Paris, 286 pp.
OST, Science & Technologie Indicateurs — Edition 1994, Economica, Paris, 425 pp.
OST, Science & Technologie Indicateurs — Edition 1996, Economica, Paris, 473 pp.
OST, Science & Technologie Indicateurs — Edition 1998, Economica, Paris, 551 pp.
OST, Science & Technologie Indicateurs — Edition 2000, Economica, Paris, 512 pp.
OST, Science & Technologie Indicateurs — Edition 2002, Economica, Paris, 467 pp.
PREST (2000). Impact of the Research Assessment Exercise and the Future Quality Assurance in the light of changes in the research landscape. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), by PREST, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
RAE 2001. Guide to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise.
Van Raan, A.F.J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight studies. Scientometrics, 36, 397–420.
Rempen, A., (1998). Leserbrief zur Haller, U., H. Hepp and E. Reinhold Tötet der ‘Impact factor’ die deutsche Sprache? Gynakologisch-geburtshilfliche Rundschau, 38, 54–54.
Saiz-Salinas, J.I., (1996). Failed professor. Nature, 381, 186.
Tijssen, R.J.W., van Leeuwen T.N., van Raan, A.F.J. (2002). Mapping the scientific performance of German medical research. An international comparative bibliometric study. Report to the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
VSNU, Standard Evaluation Protocol (1998) for Public Research organisations, Utrecht, 1998.
VSNU, NWO, and KNAW, Standard Evaluation Protocol (2003–2009) for Public Research organisations, January 2003.
Warner, J. (2000a). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the Research Assessment Exercises, Journal of Information Science, 26, 453–460.
Warner, J. (2000b). Research assessment and Citation Analysis, The Scientist, 14, October 30.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Descriptive Versus Evaluative Bibliometrics. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2702-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2755-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)