Conclusion
At the end of my paper let me recall the statement made in my referee's report: “Evaluation of persons by scientometric methods is a complex endeavour and needs more precaution than that of teams or countries”. I do believe, however, that in the not too far future more quantitative data and indicators will be used in evaluation processes of any kind than at present. But even the best computers need software.
Nevertheless, I have to admit that scientometry badly needs a general theory and standardized methods for the quantitative evaluation of various aspects of science and scientists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
C. Nicolini, S. Vakula, M. I. Balla, E. Gandini, Can the assignment of university chairs be automated?Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 93.
A. K. Formann, Academic personnel selection: Description and prognosis of the decisions made by the committee for the selection of candidates for a full professorship,Scientometrics, 25 (1992) 401.
F. Kodama, A system approach to science indicators, In:H. Grupp (Ed.),Problems of Measuring Technological Change, Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Köln, 1986.
M. J. Moravcsik, Some contextual problems of science indicators, In:A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland, 1988.
A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, T. Braun, Against absolute methods: Relative scientometric indicators and relational charts as evaluation tools. In:A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North-Holland, 1988.
S. Hemlin, Scientific quality in the eyes of the scientists. A questionnaire study,Scientometrics, 1 (1993) 3.
L. R. Jauch, W. F. Glueck, Evaluation of university professor's research performance,Management Science, 22 (1975) 66.
B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research. Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 61.
H. F. Moed, W. J. M. Burger, J. G. Frankfort, A. F. J. Van Raan, The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance,Research Policy, 14 (1985) 131.
P. Vinkler, Bibliometric analysis of publication activity of a scientific research institute, In:L. Egghe, R. Rousseau (Eds),Informetrics 89/90, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 1990.
G. F. Gaetani, A. M. Ferraris, Academic promotion in Italy,Nature, 353 (1991) 10.
P. Vinkler, An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes,Scientometrics, 13 (1988) 239.
P. Vinkler, Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness,Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 213.
G. Hirst, Discipline impact factors: A method for determining score journal lists,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29 (1978) 171.
M. L. Raisig, Mathematical evaluation of the scientific serial,Science, 131 (1960) 1417.
E. Garfield, Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Wiley, New York, 1979.
P. Vinkler, Giants, dwarfs and paradigmers,Psientometrics, 60 (1992) 35.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Comments on the paper byC. Nicolini, S. Vakula, M. Italo Balla, E. Gandini,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 93.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vinkler, P. Some aspects of the evaluation of scientific and related performances of individuals. Scientometrics 32, 109–116 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016887
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016887