Research Evaluation

Papers
(The TQCC of Research Evaluation is 6. 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 2022-05-01 to 2026-05-01.)
ArticleCitations
Cross-sectional analysis of self-promotional language in texts of grant proposals across gender41
Globalization of scientific communication: Evidence from authors in academic journals by country of origin31
Competitive performativity of academic social networks: the subjectivation of competition on ResearchGate25
Do thematic funding instruments lead researchers in new directions? Strategic funding priorities and topic switching among British grant recipients25
Enriching research quality: A proposition for stakeholder heterogeneity21
How bibliometric evaluation makes the academia an ‘Iron Cage’: Evidence from Chinese academics20
Towards a sustainable and responsible model for monitoring open science and research—analysis of the Finnish model for monitoring open science and research20
Replicability and the humanities: the problem with universal measures of research quality19
Impact types and approaches in assessing research impact: from a scoping review to a comprehensive framework17
Generative AI can and should accelerate research evaluation reform to better recognize ‘distinctly human contributions’17
The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions14
From ‘research impact’ to ‘research value’: a new approach to support research for societal benefit14
Can talent policy promote green technology innovation?13
Simultaneous submissions without simultaneous peer review13
Evaluation of economic incentives for Chinese university patent transfers: Is increasing the inventor share rate more effective?13
Correction to: Stated preference methods and STI policy studies: a foreground approach13
How impact-focused funding influences researchers’ knowledge mobilization activities12
Evaluating LLM-assisted research: stage-sensitive asymmetries in productivity and epistemic control11
One size fits all? A comparative review of policy-making in the area of research impact evaluation in the UK, Poland and Norway11
Tilting at twin windmills: On article quotas and journal impact factors11
When publication metrics become the fetish: The research evaluation systems’ relationship with academic work engagement and burnout10
Research impact as understood by two funders of agricultural research in South Africa10
Research impact seen from the user side10
Revisiting R&I policy assessment in the EU: a semantic analysis of ERAWATCH and RIO reports10
Drivers of research misconduct: exploring evidence of neocolonial influences in Nepal9
Improving the reporting of research impact assessments: a systematic review of biomedical funder research impact assessments9
Early career academic's odyssey: A narrative study of her professional identity construction9
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
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
Do funding modes matter? A multilevel analysis of funding allocation mechanisms on university research performance8
Unveiling research productivity barriers via fuzzy AHP: a case of management faculty in India7
Transfer versus co-production: Knowledge as ‘MEANS’ to sustainability as an ‘END’7
Determining and weighting effective outputs of humanities research to meet scientific and professional goals: A study of language and literature fields7
When theory meets practice in transformative innovation policy evaluation: experiences from Sweden7
Evaluation as a source of unhappiness in academia—unpacking the boundaries of responsible research assessment7
Quality from within: Entry points to research quality in the humanities7
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 20206
The future of scholarly communication: rethinking peer review and editorial roles in the digital age6
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
Equality and employment aspects of the UK Research Excellence Framework6
Data inaccuracy quantification and uncertainty propagation for bibliometric indicators6
Research evaluation in Brazil and the Netherlands: a comparative study6
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
Local reach, global significance? The politics of scale and the competing imaginaries of the UK research impact agenda6
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
‘I want to be able to do what I know the tools will allow us to do’: Practicing evaluative bibliometrics through digital infrastructure6
0.4499831199646