Research Evaluation

Papers
(The median citation count of Research Evaluation is 2. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2022-06-01 to 2026-06-01.)
ArticleCitations
Cross-sectional analysis of self-promotional language in texts of grant proposals across gender42
Globalization of scientific communication: Evidence from authors in academic journals by country of origin36
Competitive performativity of academic social networks: the subjectivation of competition on ResearchGate27
Towards a sustainable and responsible model for monitoring open science and research—analysis of the Finnish model for monitoring open science and research26
How bibliometric evaluation makes the academia an ‘Iron Cage’: Evidence from Chinese academics21
Do thematic funding instruments lead researchers in new directions? Strategic funding priorities and topic switching among British grant recipients21
Replicability and the humanities: the problem with universal measures of research quality20
Generative AI can and should accelerate research evaluation reform to better recognize ‘distinctly human contributions’19
The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions17
Impact types and approaches in assessing research impact: from a scoping review to a comprehensive framework17
From ‘research impact’ to ‘research value’: a new approach to support research for societal benefit15
Simultaneous submissions without simultaneous peer review14
Correction to: Stated preference methods and STI policy studies: a foreground approach13
Evaluating LLM-assisted research: stage-sensitive asymmetries in productivity and epistemic control13
Evaluation of economic incentives for Chinese university patent transfers: Is increasing the inventor share rate more effective?13
One size fits all? A comparative review of policy-making in the area of research impact evaluation in the UK, Poland and Norway12
Seeking alignment: reproducing and transforming impact practices in transdisciplinary research projects12
How impact-focused funding influences researchers’ knowledge mobilization activities12
Can talent policy promote green technology innovation?12
Revisiting R&I policy assessment in the EU: a semantic analysis of ERAWATCH and RIO reports11
Tilting at twin windmills: On article quotas and journal impact factors11
Research impact as understood by two funders of agricultural research in South Africa10
Research impact seen from the user side10
When publication metrics become the fetish: The research evaluation systems’ relationship with academic work engagement and burnout10
Linking science and industry: influence of scientific research on technological innovation through patent citations9
Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany9
Early career academic's odyssey: A narrative study of her professional identity construction9
Drivers of research misconduct: exploring evidence of neocolonial influences in Nepal9
Measuring research quality in a more inclusive way: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework8
UGC-CARE delisted: consequences and concerns for Indian research ecosystem8
Unveiling research productivity barriers via fuzzy AHP: a case of management faculty in India8
When theory meets practice in transformative innovation policy evaluation: experiences from Sweden8
Improving the reporting of research impact assessments: a systematic review of biomedical funder research impact assessments8
Transfer versus co-production: Knowledge as ‘MEANS’ to sustainability as an ‘END’7
Artificial intelligence in academic practices and policy discourses across ‘Big 5’ publishers7
Unpacking the discourse surrounding the impact agenda in the Hong Kong Research Assessment Exercise 20207
Equality and employment aspects of the UK Research Excellence Framework7
Determining and weighting effective outputs of humanities research to meet scientific and professional goals: A study of language and literature fields7
Evaluation as a source of unhappiness in academia—unpacking the boundaries of responsible research assessment7
Local reach, global significance? The politics of scale and the competing imaginaries of the UK research impact agenda7
Quality from within: Entry points to research quality in the humanities7
Do funding modes matter? A multilevel analysis of funding allocation mechanisms on university research performance7
The future of scholarly communication: rethinking peer review and editorial roles in the digital age7
‘I want to be able to do what I know the tools will allow us to do’: Practicing evaluative bibliometrics through digital infrastructure6
Research evaluation in Brazil and the Netherlands: a comparative study6
Evaluating transformative innovation policy in a formative way: Insights from Vinnova’s food mission experiment6
Assessing university policies for enhancing societal impact of academic research: A multicriteria mapping approach6
Repertoires of research value: performing societal impact across countries6
Data inaccuracy quantification and uncertainty propagation for bibliometric indicators6
A typology of peer-reviewers: role, characteristics, and egoistic and altruistic perspectives6
Evaluating participatory research projects through a harmonized, online, self-reflection, and impact-assessment methodology6
Spreading the gospel: Legitimating university rankings as boundary work6
Improving universities’ activities in academic startup support through public interventions: The effectiveness of the German programme ‘EXIST—leverage of potentials’6
In the eye of beholder? The notions of quality in the humanities5
Quis judicabit ipsos judices? A case study on the dynamics of competitive funding panel evaluations5
Towards a more informed and balanced use of scientific performance metrics5
Prestige of scholarly book publishers—An investigation into criteria, processes, and practices across countries5
Development and content validation of the CAREFUL-AI framework for evaluating AI-generated scientific manuscripts: an exploratory cross-platform study5
The influence of research topics on ERC grant success: bottom-up, but not topic-neutral5
How can societally-targeted research funding shape researcher networks and practices?5
Evaluation of the arts in performance-based research funding systems: An international perspective5
Devices of evaluation: Institutionalization and impact—Introduction to the special issue5
Evaluating co-creation in social innovation projects: Towards a process orientated framework for EU projects and beyond5
Exploring research quality and journal representation: a comparative study of African Journals Online, Scopus, and Web of Science5
Acknowledged organizations in biomedical and life sciences research: a large-scale analysis of classification, citation, and topic evolution5
Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices4
The impact of Italian performance-based research funding systems on the intensity of international research collaboration4
Gender gaps in the peer review process. Different sources in the evaluation process for the allocation of grants in Argentina4
What is a high-quality research environment? Evidence from the UK’s research excellence framework4
Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the research excellence framework4
Funding lotteries for research grant allocation: An extended taxonomy and evaluation of their fairness4
From knowledge to impact: tracing stakeholder engagement pathways within different research areas4
Explaining employment sector choices of doctoral graduates in Germany4
Gender diversity and publication activity—an analysis of STEM in the UK4
The nexus between research impact and sustainability assessment: From stakeholders’ perspective4
Toward a modular evaluation approach of real-world laboratories: Findings from a literature review4
Diverse roles of twitter in research evaluation: original tweets and retweets capture different types of engagements with scholarly articles4
Dealing with potentials and drawbacks of peer review panels: About the intertwined layers of determinacy and indeterminacy4
Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity4
Gender gaps in the promotion of mid-career university academic staff: a meta-analytic study4
Peer review research assessment: are the reviewers really experts?3
The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies3
Predicting future publishing success among sociologists at time of hire in the US Higher education system3
Funding acknowledgements and funding concentration in the social sciences and humanities: ‘ a tale of two unis3
Meetings that matter: the dual benefits of panel peer review3
When everyone writes like a pro: rethinking grant review in the age of AI3
Proving research misconduct3
Making transdisciplinary funding more effective: lessons from a literature review and focus group interviews2
From intent to impact—The decline of broader impacts throughout an NSF project life cycle2
Does new public management repel talent? Findings from a choice experiment among German researchers2
Evaluating the outcomes of Embrapa’s scientific contributions on policy documents: an exploratory assessment using the Overton database2
A consistent solution to the university diversity2
Can journal reviewers dependably assess rigour, significance, and originality in theoretical papers? Evidence from physics2
Boundary-work and social closure in academic recruitment: Insights from the transdisciplinary subject area Swedish as a Second Language2
Time-to-position as an indicator of research system efficiency and equity: evidence from early career scholars in Taiwan2
International research collaboration in personalized medicine between Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean2
Missed marks: understanding the disconnect of research methodology courses in combating predatory publishing2
Toward a mission-oriented framework for funding public research institutions: a multi-case study approach2
University policy engagement bodies in the UK and the variable meanings of and approaches to impact2
0.069546937942505