Location of Repository

A bibliometric evaluation of the research performance of British university politics departments: Publications in leading journals

By Andrew M. Colman, D. Dhillon and B. Coulthard

Abstract

This is a copy of the author's draft. The original publication is available at www.springerlink.comThe research performance of 41 British university politics departments was evaluated through an analysis of articles published between 1987 and 1992 in nine European politics journals with the highest citation impact factors. Annual performance scores were obtained by dividing each department’s number of publications in these journals in each year (departmental productivity) by the corresponding departmental size. These scores were summed to obtain a research performance score for each department over the period of assessment. They correlate significantly with research performance scores from two previous studies using different methodologies: Crewe’s per capita simple publication count for the years 1978 to 1984, and the Universities Funding Council’s research selectivity ratings covering the years 1989 to 1992

Publisher: Springer
Year: 1995
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/466

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1957). America’s Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing Profession doi
  2. Assessing Research: Citation-count Shortcomings’, The Psychologist,
  3. (1973). Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability’, doi
  4. (1989). Books and Chapters are Not to be Neglected in Measuring Research Productivity’, doi
  5. (1971). Citation indexes’,
  6. Evaluating Research Eminence in Psychology: The Construct Validity A Bibliometric Evaluation 12 of Citation Counts’;
  7. (1982). Graduate Training and Productivity: A Look at Who Publishes’, doi
  8. Graduate Training and Productivity: A Look at Who Publishes’; doi
  9. Mapping the World of Science: Is Citation Analysis a Legitimate Evaluation Tool?’. doi
  10. (1989). On Productive and Unproductive: Comments About Productivity’, doi
  11. (1979). Political Science Departments: Reputation Vs. doi
  12. (1977). Productivity Ratings of Graduate Programs in Psychology Based Upon Publication in the doi
  13. Productivity Ratings of Graduate Programs in Psychology Based Upon Publication in the Journals of the American Psychological Association’; doi
  14. (1986). Ranking the Graduate Departments in the 1980s: Toward Objective Indicators’, PS: Political Science and Politics, doi
  15. (1988). Reputation, Research and Reality: The Publication Records of doi
  16. (1978). Reputation, Research and Reality: The Publication Records of UK Departments of Politics’, doi
  17. (1978). Research and Reality: The Publication Records of UK Departments of Politics, doi
  18. Research Performance Indicators in the University Sector’. doi
  19. (1992). Research Performance of United Kingdom Psychology Departments’; doi
  20. Scientific Excellence: Origins and Assessment doi
  21. (1992). Scientific Information, Journal Citation Reports: A Bibliometric Analysis
  22. (1965). Scientists at Major and Minor Universities: A Study of Productivity and Recognition’, doi
  23. Serious Anomalies in the UGC Comparative Evaluation of the Research Performance of Psychology Departments’; Gillett, ‘Research Performance Indicators Based on Peer Review: A Critical Analysis’.
  24. (1992). Universities Funding Council, Research Assessment Exercise 1992: The Outcome: Circular Letter 26/92 (Bristol: Universities Funding Council,
  25. Universities Funding Council, Research Assessment Exercise 1992: The Outcome: Circular Letter 26/92, at
  26. Universities Funding Council, Research Assessment Exercise 1992: The Outcome: Circular Letter 26/92.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.