Endre søk
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Alternativa namn
Publikasjoner (10 av 56) Visa alla publikasjoner
van den Besselaar, P. & Sandström, U. (2019). Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator. PLoS ONE, 14(3), Article ID e0202712.
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator
2019 (engelsk)Inngår i: PLoS ONE, ISSN 1932-6203, E-ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 14, nr 3, artikkel-id e0202712Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used to evaluate individual scientists-as is exemplified by the popularity of the many other publication and citation-based indicators used in evaluation. These indicators, however, cover at best some of the quality dimensions relevant for assessing a researcher: productivity and impact. At the same time, research quality has more dimensions than productivity and impact alone. As current bibliometric indicators are not covering various important quality dimensions, we here contribute to developing better indicators for those quality dimensions not yet addressed. One of the quality dimensions lacking valid indicators is an individual researcher's independence. We propose indicators to measure different aspects of independence: two assessing whether a researcher has developed an own collaboration network and two others assessing the level of thematic independence. Taken together they form an independence indicator. We illustrate how these indicators distinguish between researchers that are equally productive and have a considerable impact. The independence indicator is a step forward in evaluating individual scholarly quality.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Public Library of Science, 2019
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-249879 (URN)10.1371/journal.pone.0202712 (DOI)000462465800001 ()30917110 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85063577996 (Scopus ID)
Merknad

QC 22220190423

Tilgjengelig fra: 2019-04-23 Laget: 2019-04-23 Sist oppdatert: 2019-04-23bibliografisk kontrollert
Sandström, U. (2019). PANEL COMPOSITION AS PATHWAY TO IMPACT:: DO WE NEED STAKEHOLDER EXPERTISE TO SELECT RELEVANT MISSION-ORIENTED PROJECTS?. Journal for research and technology policy evaluation, 48, 66-71
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>PANEL COMPOSITION AS PATHWAY TO IMPACT:: DO WE NEED STAKEHOLDER EXPERTISE TO SELECT RELEVANT MISSION-ORIENTED PROJECTS?
2019 (engelsk)Inngår i: Journal for research and technology policy evaluation, ISSN 1726-6629, Vol. 48, s. 66-71Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

I t is often argued that the presence of stakeholders in review panels may improve the selection of societal relevant research projects. In this paper, we investigate whether the composition of panels indeed matters. More precisely, when stakeholders are in the panel, does that result in more positive evaluation of proposals of relevance to that stakeholder? We investigate thisfor the gender issues domain, and show that this is the case. When stakeholders are present, the relevant projects obtain a more positive evaluation and consequently a higher score. If these findingscan be generalised, they are an important insight for the creation of pathways to and conditions for impact.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Vienna: Austrian Platform for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, 2019
Emneord
stakeholder; gender; review reports; panel scores
HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Industriell ekonomi och organisation
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-258232 (URN)10.22.163/fteval.2019.370 (DOI)
Merknad

QC 20190913

Tilgjengelig fra: 2019-09-10 Laget: 2019-09-10 Sist oppdatert: 2019-09-13bibliografisk kontrollert
Sandström, U. (2019). Självständighet – ny indikator för forskningskvalitet. Tidningen Curie, 1-1
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Självständighet – ny indikator för forskningskvalitet
2019 (svensk)Inngår i: Tidningen Curie, s. 1-1Artikkel i tidsskrift (Annet (populærvitenskap, debatt, mm)) Published
sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Stockholm: , 2019
HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Industriell ekonomi och organisation
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-258930 (URN)
Merknad

QC 20190913

Tilgjengelig fra: 2019-09-11 Laget: 2019-09-11 Sist oppdatert: 2019-09-13bibliografisk kontrollert
Sandström, U. & Van den Besselaar, P. (2018). Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 365-384
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems
2018 (engelsk)Inngår i: Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1751-1577, E-ISSN 1875-5879, Vol. 12, nr 1, s. 365-384Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Understanding the quality of science systems requires international comparative studies, which are difficult because of the lack of comparable data especially about inputs in research. In this study, we deploy an approach based on change instead of on levels of inputs and outputs: an approach that to a large extent eliminates the problem of measurement differences between countries. We firstly show that there are large differences in efficiency between national science systems, defined as the increase in output (highly cited papers) per percentage increase in input (funding). We then discuss our findings using popular explanations of performance differences: differences in funding systems (performance related or not), differences in the level of competition, differences in the level of university autonomy, and differences in the level of academic freedom. Interestingly, the available data do not support these common explanations. What the data suggest is that efficient systems are characterized by a well-developed ex post evaluation system combined with considerably high institutional funding and relatively low university autonomy (meaning a high autonomy of professionals). On the other hand, the less efficient systems have a strong ex ante control, either through a high level of so-called competitive project funding, or through strong power of the university management. Another conclusion is that more and better data are needed.

Emneord
Research policy; Input-output studies; Performance-based funding; Research efficiency; Bibliometrics; Citations
HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Industriell ekonomi och organisation
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-223588 (URN)10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007 (DOI)000427479800026 ()2-s2.0-85042382770 (Scopus ID)
Forskningsfinansiär
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, P12-1302:1
Merknad

QC 20180308

Tilgjengelig fra: 2018-02-23 Laget: 2018-02-23 Sist oppdatert: 2019-08-05bibliografisk kontrollert
Van Den Besselaar, P. & Sandström, U. (2018). Quantity matters, but how does it work?. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1059-1062
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Quantity matters, but how does it work?
2018 (engelsk)Inngår i: Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1751-1577, E-ISSN 1875-5879, Vol. 12, nr 4, s. 1059-1062Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Elsevier Ltd, 2018
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-236619 (URN)10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.007 (DOI)000451074800004 ()2-s2.0-85052868809 (Scopus ID)
Merknad

QC 20181119

Tilgjengelig fra: 2018-11-19 Laget: 2018-11-19 Sist oppdatert: 2018-12-10bibliografisk kontrollert
van den Besselaar, P., Sandström, U. & Schiffbaenker, H. (2018). Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports. Scientometrics, 118(1), 313-329
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports
2018 (engelsk)Inngår i: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 118, nr 1, s. 313-329Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Peer and panel review are the dominant forms of grant decision-making, despite its serious weaknesses as shown by many studies. This paper contributes to the understanding of the grant selection process through a linguistic analysis of the review reports. We reconstruct in that way several aspects of the evaluation and selection process: what dimensions of the proposal are discussed during the process and how, and what distinguishes between the successful and non-successful applications? We combine the linguistic findings with interviews with panel members and with bibliometric performance scores of applicants. The former gives the context, and the latter helps to interpret the linguistic findings. The analysis shows that the performance of the applicant and the content of the proposed study are assessed with the same categories, suggesting that the panelists actually do not make a difference between past performance and promising new research ideas. The analysis also suggests that the panels focus on rejecting the applications by searching for weak points, and not on finding the high-risk/high-gain groundbreaking ideas that may be in the proposal. This may easily result in sub-optimal selections, in low predictive validity, and in bias.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Springer, 2018
Emneord
Peer review; Panel review; Research grants; Decision-making Linguistics LIWC; European Research Council (ERC)
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-235172 (URN)10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x (DOI)2-s2.0-85049856026 (Scopus ID)
Forskningsfinansiär
EU, European Research Council
Merknad

QC 20180918

Tilgjengelig fra: 2018-09-17 Laget: 2018-09-17 Sist oppdatert: 2018-10-16bibliografisk kontrollert
van den Besselaar, P. & Sandström, U. (2017). Counterintuitive effects of incentives?. Research Evaluation, 26(4), 349-351
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Counterintuitive effects of incentives?
2017 (engelsk)Inngår i: Research Evaluation, ISSN 0958-2029, E-ISSN 1471-5449, Vol. 26, nr 4, s. 349-351Artikkel i tidsskrift, Editorial material (Annet vitenskapelig) Published
Abstract [en]

A recent paper in this journal compares the Norwegian model of using publications counts for university funding with a similar intervention in Australia in the mid-1990 s. The authors argue that the Norwegian model (taking into account the quality of publications) performs better than the Australian (which did neglect paper quality other than being peer reviewed). We argue that these conclusions are in contrast to the evidence provided in the article, and therefore should be considered incorrect.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2017
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-217443 (URN)10.1093/reseval/rvx029 (DOI)000413999100008 ()2-s2.0-85032747126 (Scopus ID)
Merknad

QC 20171117

Tilgjengelig fra: 2017-11-17 Laget: 2017-11-17 Sist oppdatert: 2017-11-17bibliografisk kontrollert
Sandström, U. (2017). Evaluating research portfolios, a method and a case. In: STI 2017 - Science, Technology and Innovation indicators: Open indicators: innovation, participation and actor-based STI indicators Paris 2017. Paper presented at STI2017, 6 – 8 September 2017.
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Evaluating research portfolios, a method and a case
2017 (engelsk)Inngår i: STI 2017 - Science, Technology and Innovation indicators: Open indicators: innovation, participation and actor-based STI indicators Paris 2017, 2017Konferansepaper, Publicerat paper (Fagfellevurdert)
Abstract [en]

Evaluating whether a portfolio of funded research projects (of a research council), or a portfolio of research papers (the output of a university) is relevant for science and for society required two-dimensional mapping of the project portfolio: (i) projecting the portfolio on a science map showing how the portfolio fits into and possibly shapes the research fronts, and (ii) projecting the portfolio on a map of societal challenges, showing where the portfolio links to societal problem solving or innovation. This requires evaluating in two different 'languages': a technical language relating projects to the research front, and a societal language relating the projects to societal challenges. In this paper, we demonstrate a method for doing so, using the SMS-platform. The advantage is that the method is much less dependent on subjective classifications by single experts or a small group of experts, and that it is rather user-friendly Evaluating research portfolios, a method and a case. Available from:

HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Industriell ekonomi och organisation
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-214068 (URN)
Konferanse
STI2017, 6 – 8 September 2017
Merknad

QC 20171018

Tilgjengelig fra: 2017-09-11 Laget: 2017-09-11 Sist oppdatert: 2018-06-19bibliografisk kontrollert
Sandström, U. (2017). Influence of cognitive distance on grant decisions. In: STI 2017 - Science, Technology and Innovation indicators: Open indicators: innovation, participation and actor-based STI indicators. Paper presented at STI2017, 6 – 8 September 2017.
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Influence of cognitive distance on grant decisions
2017 (engelsk)Inngår i: STI 2017 - Science, Technology and Innovation indicators: Open indicators: innovation, participation and actor-based STI indicators, 2017Konferansepaper, Publicerat paper (Fagfellevurdert)
Abstract [en]

The selection of grant applications generally is based on peer and panel review, but as shown in many studies, the outcome of this process does not only depend on the scientific merit or excellence, but also on social factors, and on the way the decision-making process is organized. A major criticism on the peer review process is that it is inherently conservative, with panel members inclined to select applications that are line with their own theoretical perspective. In this paper we define 'cognitive distance' and operationalize it. We apply the concept, and investigate whether it influences the probability to get funded.

HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Industriell ekonomi och organisation
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-214067 (URN)
Konferanse
STI2017, 6 – 8 September 2017
Merknad

QC 20171018

Tilgjengelig fra: 2017-09-11 Laget: 2017-09-11 Sist oppdatert: 2017-10-18bibliografisk kontrollert
Sandström, U. (2016). Arbetslivsforskningens framtid i bibliometriskt perspektiv. In: Åke Sandberg (Ed.), På jakt efter framtidens arbete: Utmaningar i arbetets organisering och forskning (pp. 188-197). Tankesmedjan Tiden
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Arbetslivsforskningens framtid i bibliometriskt perspektiv
2016 (svensk)Inngår i: På jakt efter framtidens arbete: Utmaningar i arbetets organisering och forskning / [ed] Åke Sandberg, Tankesmedjan Tiden , 2016, s. 188-197Kapittel i bok, del av antologi (Annet vitenskapelig)
Abstract [sv]

När svensk arbetsorganisatorisk forskning nyligen utvärderades var resultateten blandning av tillförsikt och oro för verksamheten. Visst det går bra,men tveksamheter kring förnyelseverksamheten ställde allvarliga frågorför framtiden. Sverige ligger sällsynt bra inom delområden av arbetslivsforskningsom har stabil tillväxt och som ger gott resultat i form kollegialuppmärksamhet. Mycket talar för att svensk forskning har förankrat sigi ett antal starka paradområden och att detta inneburit inlåsning tillområden som möjligen kan komma att tappa i betydelse på längre sikt.Nya delområden inom arbetslivsforskningen täcks inte alls av de svenska forskarna eller i alla fall inte i förväntad utsträckning. Den svenska forskningsportföljen är relativt koncentrerad och riskerar därför att bli en black om foten om och när ordentliga framsteg görs inom nya områden.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Tankesmedjan Tiden, 2016
Emneord
bibliometri, arbetsliv
HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Industriell ekonomi och organisation
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-197087 (URN)9789156631672 (ISBN)
Merknad

QC 20161209

Tilgjengelig fra: 2016-11-29 Laget: 2016-11-29 Sist oppdatert: 2016-12-09bibliografisk kontrollert
Organisasjoner
Identifikatorer
ORCID-id: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0003-1292-8239