Research Evaluation

Papers
(The TQCC of Research Evaluation is 5. 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 2020-07-01 to 2024-07-01.)
ArticleCitations
Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)60
What effects does international mobility have on scientists’ careers? A systematic review40
No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic39
The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods39
What are the social and scientific benefits of participating at academic conferences? Insights from a survey among doctoral students and postdocs in Germany36
Transforming science and society? Methodological lessons from and for transformation research29
On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects on academic and broader impact26
Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review20
The role of metrics in peer assessments18
Does government support of a few leading universities have a broader impact on the higher education system? Evaluation of the Russian University Excellence Initiative17
Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review17
A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies16
Assessing research excellence: Evaluating the Research Excellence Framework15
The effect of competitive public funding on scientific output: A comparison between China and the EU15
Understanding and evaluating the impact of integrated problem-oriented research programmes: Concepts and considerations14
Capabilities for transdisciplinary research14
Does reviewing experience reduce disagreement in proposals evaluation? Insights from Marie Skłodowska-Curie and COST Actions12
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 countries12
Spreading the gospel: Legitimating university rankings as boundary work11
An exploration of referees’ comments published in open peer review journals: The characteristics of review language and the association between review scrutiny and citations11
Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices10
Beyond bean counting: Is the policy effective for the innovation efficiency of wind power industry in China?10
The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions10
Pathways for assessing interdisciplinarity: A systematic review9
Science rules! A qualitative study of scientists’ approaches to grant lottery9
Open Editors: A dataset of scholarly journals’ editorial board positions9
Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion9
How to evaluateex anteimpact of funding proposals? An analysis of reviewers’ comments on impact statements8
Toward a modular evaluation approach of real-world laboratories: Findings from a literature review8
Societal targeting in researcher funding: An exploratory approach8
The use of an impact framework to evaluate the impact of research on policy and practice: Screening questionnaires for intellectual disability8
The classification of public research organizations: Taxonomical explorations8
Creating evaluative homogeneity: Experience of constructing a national journal ranking8
Biographical representation, from narrative to list: The evolution of curricula vitae in the humanities, 1950 to 20107
Do peers share the same criteria for assessing grant applications?7
Measuring societal impact of research—Developing and validating an impact instrument for occupational health and safety7
Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the research excellence framework6
Interdisciplinary knowledge combinations and emerging technological topics: Implications for reducing uncertainties in research evaluation6
SSH researchers make an impact differently. Looking at public research from the perspective of users6
Estimating the effects of public subsidies on the performance of supported enterprises across firm sizes6
Competitive exposure and existential recognition: Visibility and legitimacy on academic social networking sites5
Mirror, mirror on the wall: is economics the fairest of them all? An investigation into the social sciences and humanities in Vietnam5
Making the cut: How panel reviewers use evaluation devices to select applications at the European Research Council5
Valorization of transdisciplinary research: An evaluation approach and empirical illustration5
Systematizing societal effects of transdisciplinary research5
Evaluating socially engaged climate research: Scientists’ visions of a climate resilient U.S. Southwest5
0.03282904624939