ARRA's experience in the identification of top research teams:

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary 2 from 1800 assessed researchers in Sections 1 and 2,~ 1000 are members of some team questionnaire sent to 63 teams, covering some ~ 400researchers 870 researchers do not belong to any team 580 researchers do not belong to top or above-averageteams
Section 3 (SSH)The majority are individual researchers (occasional pairs)• even the review of mutual citations has led to the same data Problems with the performance evaluation using WoK,InCites, ESI – due to the lack of data regarding SAS SSHfields (except for several individuals within Psychology andEconomics, none with H>2)Additional sources from SAS Library• Lack of proper scientometric data (average percentile, etc.)• Non-existing benchmarks (no systematic information aboutworks and citations outside main databases)13
Page 1 and 2: IREG-5 ForumThe National Rankings o
Page 3 and 4: Main Goals of the ProjectSAS asked
Page 5 and 6: Teams’ identification Primary lis
Page 7 and 8: First “filter” In Sections 1 an
Page 9 and 10: AnorChem-TeoChem Art Cit Cit/Art H-
Page 11: Summary 1 22 top teams were identif
Page 15: HumanitiesChanges to evaluation met
Page 19 and 20: Comparison of total data in a 10-ye
Page 21 and 22: Summary 2 (chart)from 1900 assessed

ARRA's experience in the identification of top research teams:

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?