This document has not been cited yet.

1. Abramo, G., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2022). The different responses of universities to introduction of performance‐based research funding. Research Evaluation, 30, 514–528.
   Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
   

2. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2011). National research assessment exercises: A comparison of peer review and bibliometric rankings. Scientometrics, 89, 929–941.

3. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2019). When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation. Journal of Informetrics, 13, 830–840.

4. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Grilli, L. (2021). The effects of citation‐based research evaluation schemes on self‐citation behavior. Journal of Informetrics, 15, 101–204.

5. Adams, J., & Gurney, K. (2010). Funding selectivity, concentration and excellence – How good is the UK's research?. Oxford: Higher Education Research Institute.
   Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
   

6. Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13, 33–41.

7. Aksnes, D. W., Langfedlt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. Sage Open, 9, 215824401982957.

8. Ancaiani, A., Anfossi, A. F., Barbara, A., Benedetto, S., Blasi, B., Carletti, V., … Sileoni, S. (2015). Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004‐10 research evaluation exercise. Research Evaluation, 24, 242–255.

9. Anderson, D. L., & Tressler, J. (2014). The New Zealand performance‐based research fund and its impact on publication activity in economics. Research Evaluation, 23, 1–11.
   Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
   

10. Baccini, A., & De Nicolao, G. (2016). Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in Italian research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 108, 1651–1671.

11. Barker, K. (2007). The UK research assessment exercise: The evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation, 16, 3–12.

12. Boyle, G. (2008). Pay peanuts and get monkeys? Evidence from academia. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 8, 21.

13. Broadbent, A. (2010). The UK research assessment exercise: Performance measurement and resource allocation. Australian Accounting Review, 52, 14–23.

14. Buckle, R. A., & Creedy, J. (2019). An evaluation of metrics used by the performance‐based research fund process in New Zealand. New Zealand Economic Papers, 53, 270–287.

15. Buckle, R. A., & Creedy, J. (2020). The 'disciplinary effect' of the performance‐based research fund process in New Zealand. New Zealand Economic Papers, 54, 107–126.

16. Buckle, R. A., Creedy, J., & Ball, A. (2021). Fifteen years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and outcomes. Australian Economic Review, 54, 208–230.

17. Buckle, R. A., Creedy, J., & Gemmell, N. (2020). Is external research income associated with convergence or divergence of research quality across universities and disciplines? Evidence from the PBRF process in New Zealand. Applied Economics, 52, 3919–3932.

18. Buckle, R.A. & Creedy, J. (2022) The performance‐based research fund in NZ: Taking stock and looking forward. Victoria University of Wellington Working Papers in Public Finance, WP02/2022.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

19. Buckle, R.A., Creedy, J. & Gemmell, N. (2021) Sources of convergence and divergence in university research quality: Evidence from the performance‐based research funding system in New Zealand. Forthcoming Scientometrics.

20. Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications – The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32, 143–155.

21. Castle, J. L., Doornik, J. A., & Hendry, D. F. (2011). Evaluating automatic model selection. Journal of Time Series Econometrics, 3, 1–31.

22. Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Signori, A. (2016). Performance‐based funding and university research productivity: The moderating effect of university legitimacy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 85–104.

23. Chavarro, D. Tang, P. and Ràfols, I. (2016) Why researchers publish in non‐mainstream journals: Training, knowledge bridging and gap fillings, University of Sussex Social Policy Research Unit Working Paper Series, 2016‐22, December. Available at https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2016-22-swps-chavarro-et-al.pdf&site=25.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
24. Checchi, D., Malgarini, M., & Sarlo, S. (2019). Do performance‐based research funding systems affect research production and output? Higher Education Quarterly, 73, 45–69.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

25. Checchi, D., Mazzotta, I., & Malgarini, M. (2020). Convergence or polarisation? The impact of research assessment exercises in the Italian case. Scientometrics, 124, 1439–1455.

26. Dale, T., & Goldfinch, S. (2005). Article citation rates and productivity of Australasian political science units 1995‐2002. Australian Journal of Political Science, 40, 425–434.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
27. de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., … Vossenstey, H. (2015). Performance‐Based Funding and Performance Agreements in Fourteen Higher Education Systems. Enschede: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, C15HdB014, Universiteit Twente.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

28. Ehrenberg, R., Kasper, H., & Rees, D. (1991). Faculty turnover at American colleges and universities: Analyses of AAUP data. Economics of Education Review, 10, 99–11.

29. Gemmell, N., P. Nolan & G. Scobie (2017) Estimating quality‐adjusted productivity in tertiary education: Methods and evidence for New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Working Papers in Public Finance, No. WP17/2017.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
30. Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41, 277–304.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

31. Geuna, A., & Piolatto, M. (2016). Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while). Research Policy, 45, 260–271.

32. Hare, P. G. (2003). The United Kingdom's research assessment exercise: Impact on institutions, departments, individuals. Higher Education Management and Policy, 15, 43–62.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
33. Hendry, D. F., & Doornik, J. A. (2014). Empirical model discovery and theory evaluation: Automatic model selection methods in econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

34. Hicks, D. (2012). Performance‐based university research funding schemes. Research Policy, 41, 251–261.

35. Hicks, D. (2017). What year? Difficulties in identifying the effect of policy on university output. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 933–936.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

36. Hicks, D. (2020). A superb example of policy evaluation. Research Evaluation, 29, 352–353.

37. Hodder, A. P. W., & Hodder, C. (2010). Research culture and New Zealand's performance‐based research fund: Some insights from bibliographic compilations of research outputs. Scientometrics, 84, 887–901.

38. Jonkers, K., & Zacharewicz, T. (2016). Research performance based funding systems: A comparative assessment. JRC Science for Policy Report. Brussels: European Commission.

39. Jung, J. (2012). Faculty research productivity in Hong Kong across academic disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 2, 1–13.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
40. Kolarz, P., Arnold, E., Dijkstal, F., Nielsen, K., & Farla, K. (2019). International landscape study of research and innovation systems. Technopolis: Brighton.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

41. Lewis, J. M. (2014) Research productivity and research system attitudes. Public Money and Management. 417–424.

42. Mathies, C., Kivisto, J., & Birnbaum, M. (2020). Following the money? Performance‐based funding and the changing publication patterns of Finnish academics. Higher Education, 79, 21–37.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

43. Moore, W.J., Newman, R.J., Sloane, P.J. & Steely, J.D. (2002) Productivity effects of research assessment exercises. University of Aberdeen Centre for European Labour Market Research Discussion Paper.

44. OECD. (2010). Performance‐based funding for public research in tertiary education institutions: Workshop proceedings. Paris: OECD.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

45. Payne, A. A., & Roberts, J. (2010). Government oversight of public universities: Are centralized performance schemes related to increased quantity or quality? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 207–212.

46. Quah, D. T. (1993). Galton's fallacy and the convergence hypothesis. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 95, 427–443.

47. Sabharwal, M. (2013). Comparing research productivity across disciplines and career stages. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 15, 141–163.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

48. Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. K. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85, 581–594.

49. Shorrocks, A. F. (2013). Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: A unified framework based on the Shapley value. Journal of Economic Inequality, 11, 100–126.

50. Smart, W. (2009). The impact of the performance‐based research fund on the research productivity of New Zealand universities. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 34, 136–151.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
51. Stern, N. (2016). Building on success and learning from experience: An independent review of the research excellence framework. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

52. Thomas, D. A., Nedeva, M., Tirado, M. M., & Jacob, M. (2020). Changing research on research evaluation: A critical literature review to revisit the agenda. Research Evaluation, 29, 275–288.

53. Tonta, Y. (2018). Does monetary support increase the number of scientific papers? An interrupted time‐series analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3, 19–39.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

54. van den Besselaar, P., Heyman, U., & Sandstrom, U. (2017). Perverse effects of output‐based research funding? Butler's Australian case revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 905–918.

55. Wang, J., & Hicks, D. (2013). Detecting structural change in university research systems: A case study of British research policy. Research Evaluation, 22, 258–268.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
56. Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. L. (1981). Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education, 54, 238–253.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
57. Whitley, R., & Gläser, J. (Eds.). (2007). The changing governance of the sciences. The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dordrecht: Springer.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
58. Woelert, P. (2015). The 'logic of escalation' in performance measurement: An analysis of the dynamics of a research evaluation system. Policy and Society, 34, 75–85.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
59. Woelert, P. (2021). Reactivity and the dialectics of performance measurement: Micropolitics between agency and compliance. Administration and Society, 53, 963–983.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

60. Woelert, P., & McKenzie, L. (2018). Follow the money? How Australian universities replicate national performance‐based funding mechanisms. Research Evaluation, 27, 184–195.

61. Xu, Y. J. (2008). Faculty turnover: Discipline‐specific attention is warranted. Research in Higher Education, 49, 40–61.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

1. Integrating digital and sustainable entrepreneurship through business models: a bibliometric analysis. (2024). Can, Ozge ; Islam, Muhammad Farooq.
   In: Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research.
   RePEc:spr:jglont:v:14:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40497-024-00386-4.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

2. Reluctance to pursue breakthrough research: A signaling explanation. (2024). Vranceanu, Radu ; Besancenot, Damien.
   In: Research Policy.
   RePEc:eee:respol:v:53:y:2024:i:4:s0048733324000234.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

3. The impact of Jürgen Habermas’s scientific production: a scientometric review. (2023). Alcantara, Valderi Castro ; Felizardo, Luiz Flavio ; Prado, Jose Willer ; Carmo, Gisleine ; Silva, Cristiane Aparecida.
   In: Scientometrics.
   RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04625-x.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

4. Green and Renewable Energy Innovations: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis. (2023). Tarczyski, Waldemar ; Berniak-Wony, Justyna ; Mentel, Grzegorz ; Lewandowska, Anna.
   In: Energies.
   RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:3:p:1428-:d:1053614.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

5. Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?. (2023). Thelwall, Mike ; Makita, Meiko ; Abdoli, Mahshid ; Kousha, Kayvan ; Levitt, Jonathan ; Stuart, Emma ; Wilson, Paul.
   In: Research Policy.
   RePEc:eee:respol:v:52:y:2023:i:8:s0048733323001130.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

6. In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?. (2023). Thelwall, Mike ; Makita, Meiko ; Abdoli, Mahshid ; Kousha, Kayvan ; Levitt, Jonathan ; Stuart, Emma ; Wilson, Paul.
   In: Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology.
   RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:74:y:2023:i:8:p:941-953.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

7. Measuring the innovation of method knowledge elements in scientific literature. (2022). Wang, Zhongyi ; Liu, Jiyue ; Huang, Jing ; Chen, Haihua.
   In: Scientometrics.
   RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04350-5.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

8. Incentive Policies for Scientific Publications in the State Universities of Chile. (2022). Briceo, Margarita ; Ganga-Contreras, Francisco ; Troncoso, Elizabeth.
   In: Publications.
   RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:20-:d:840773.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

9. Methods to evaluate institutional responses to performance‐based research funding systems. (2022). Creedy, John ; Buckle, Robert.
   In: Australian Economic Papers.
   RePEc:bla:ausecp:v:61:y:2022:i:3:p:615-634.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

10. Using the full-text content of academic articles to identify and evaluate algorithm entities in the domain of natural language processing. (2020). Wang, Yuzhuo ; Zhang, Chengzhi.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:14:y:2020:i:4:s1751157720300985.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

11. A scoping review of simulation models of peer review. (2019). Ma, Lai ; Shankar, Kalpana ; Luo, Junwen ; Squazzoni, Flaminio ; Marui, Ana ; Feliciani, Thomas ; Lucas, Pablo.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:121:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03205-w.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

12. Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?. (2019). Abramo, Giovanni ; Reale, Emanuela ; Dangelo, Ciriaco Andrea.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:121:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03184-y.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

13. Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement. (2018). Abramo, Giovanni.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:12:y:2018:i:3:p:590-597.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

14. Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: A comparative study of three tools. (2018). Pan, Xuelian ; Hua, Weina ; Cui, Ming ; Yan, Erjia.
    In: Journal of Informetrics.
    RePEc:eee:infome:v:12:y:2018:i:2:p:481-493.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

15. Bibliometric analysis of articles published in ISI dental journals, 2007–2011. (2014). Cartes-Velasquez, Ricardo ; Delgado, Carlos Manterola .
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1173-7.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

16. Measuring the Value of Research Data: A Citation Analysis of Oceanographic Data Sets. (2014). Belter, Christopher W.
    In: PLOS ONE.
    RePEc:plo:pone00:0092590.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

17. The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes. (2013). Fedderke, Johannes.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:97:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-013-0981-0.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

18. Evaluating research institutions: the potential of the success-index. (2013). Mastrogiacomo, Luca ; Franceschini, Fiorenzo ; Maisano, Domenico.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:96:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0887-2.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

19. National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case. (2013). Cicero, Tindaro ; Abramo, Giovanni ; Dangelo, Ciriaco Andrea.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:95:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0875-6.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

20. Benchmarking research performance at the university level with information theoretic measures. (2013). Rodriguez-Sanchez, Rosa ; Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas ; Fdez-Valdivia, J ; Torres-Salinas, Daniel.
    In: Scientometrics.
    RePEc:spr:scient:v:95:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0854-y.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

21. Reviewers’ Ratings and Bibliometric Indicators: Hand in Hand When Assessing Over Research Proposals?. (2013). Robinson-Garca, Nicols ; Cabezas-Clavijo, Lvaro ; Jimnez-Contreras, Evaristo ; Escabias, Manuel.
    In: PLOS ONE.
    RePEc:plo:pone00:0068258.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

Report date: 2025-10-05 02:55:37 || Missing content? Let us know