OOIR: Observatory of International Research

Papers

(The TQCC of Research Evaluation is 4. 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 2020-11-01 to 2024-11-01.)

Article	Citations
Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)	73
The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods	45
No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic	39
Transforming science and society? Methodological lessons from and for transformation research	31
On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects on academic and broader impact	30
The role of metrics in peer assessments	23
Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review	21
Does government support of a few leading universities have a broader impact on the higher education system? Evaluation of the Russian University Excellence Initiative	18
A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies	17
Pathways for assessing interdisciplinarity: A systematic review	15
Assessing research excellence: Evaluating the Research Excellence Framework	15
Capabilities for transdisciplinary research	14
Does reviewing experience reduce disagreement in proposals evaluation? Insights from Marie Skłodowska-Curie and COST Actions	13
Beyond bean counting: Is the policy effective for the innovation efficiency of wind power industry in China?	12
How far does an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and co-production in research present a threat to academic identity and autonomy? A prospective study across five European countries	12
Spreading the gospel: Legitimating university rankings as boundary work	12
An exploration of referees’ comments published in open peer review journals: The characteristics of review language and the association between review scrutiny and citations	11
Science rules! A qualitative study of scientists’ approaches to grant lottery	11
Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion	11
The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions	10
Biographical representation, from narrative to list: The evolution of curricula vitae in the humanities, 1950 to 2010	10
Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices	10
Open Editors: A dataset of scholarly journals’ editorial board positions	10
Creating evaluative homogeneity: Experience of constructing a national journal ranking	9
Societal targeting in researcher funding: An exploratory approach	8

Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the research excellence framework	8
Toward a modular evaluation approach of real-world laboratories: Findings from a literature review	8
Interdisciplinary knowledge combinations and emerging technological topics: Implications for reducing uncertainties in research evaluation	7
Valuation regimes in academia: Researchers’ attitudes towards their diversity of activities and academic performance	7
Measuring societal impact of research—Developing and validating an impact instrument for occupational health and safety	7
Estimating the effects of public subsidies on the performance of supported enterprises across firm sizes	7
Systematizing societal effects of transdisciplinary research	7
Do peers share the same criteria for assessing grant applications?	7
Understanding collaborative interactions in relation to research impact in social sciences and humanities: A meta-ethnography	6
Valorization of transdisciplinary research: An evaluation approach and empirical illustration	6
Making the cut: How panel reviewers use evaluation devices to select applications at the European Research Council	6
SSH researchers make an impact differently. Looking at public research from the perspective of users	6
Enriching research quality: A proposition for stakeholder heterogeneity	5
Evaluating socially engaged climate research: Scientists’ visions of a climate resilient U.S. Southwest	5
Mirror, mirror on the wall: is economics the fairest of them all? An investigation into the social sciences and humanities in Vietnam	5
Interdisciplinary research and policy impacts: Assessing the significance of knowledge coproduction	5
Gender diversity and publication activity—an analysis of STEM in the UK	5
Competitive exposure and existential recognition: Visibility and legitimacy on academic social networking sites	5
Transformative academic institutions: An experimental framework for understanding regional impacts of research	4
Expression of concern: Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)	4
Promoting narrative CVs to improve research evaluation? A review of opinion pieces and experiments	4
Automated citation recommendation tools encourage questionable citations	4
The different responses of universities to introduction of performance-based research funding	4
Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity	4