Three different types of bibliometrics — literature bibliometrics, patent bibliometrics, and linkage bibliometric can all be used to address various government performance and results questions. Applications of these three bibliometric types will be described within the framework of Weinberg's internal and external criteria, whether the work being done is good science, efficiently and effectively done, and whether it is important science from a technological viewpoint. Within all bibliometrics the fundamental assumption is that the frequency with which a set of papers or patents is cited is a measure of the impact or influence of the set of papers. The literature bibliometric indicators are counts of publications and citations received in the scientific literature and various derived indicators including such phenomena as cross-sectoral citation, coauthorship and concentration within influential journals. One basic observation of literature bibliometrics, which carries over to patent bibliometrics, is that of highly skewed distributions — with a relatively small number of high-impact patents and papers, and large numbers of patents and papers of minimal impact. The key measure is whether an agency is producing or supporting highly cited papers and patents. The final set of data are in the area of linkage bibliometrics, looking at citations from patents to scientific papers. These are particularly relevant to the external criteria, in that it is quite obvious that institutions and supporting agencies whose papers are highly cited in patents are making measurable contributions to a nation's technological progress.
KeywordsSkewed Distribution Technological Progress Scientific Paper Minimal Impact Government Performance
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.F. Narin, “Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity”, Report prepared for the National Science Foundation, Contract NSF C-627, NTIS Accession #PB252339/AS, (1976), 456pp.Google Scholar
- 4.IIT Research Institute, “Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science (TRACES)”. Report prepared for the National Science Foundation, Contract NSF-C535, (1968), 72pp.Google Scholar
- 5.National Science Foundation, Science Indicators 1972, U.S. Government Printing Office, Reports of the National Science Board.Google Scholar
- 9.A.J. Lotka, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity,Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16 (1926) 317–323.Google Scholar
- 10.F. Narin, H.H. Gee, “An Analysis of Research Publications Supported by NIH, 1973–1980”, NIH Program Evaluation Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, (1986).Google Scholar
- 11.J.D. Frame, F. Narin, NIH funding and biomedical publication output,Federation Proceedings, 35 (14) (1976) 2529–2532.Google Scholar
- 13.L.B. Ellwein, P. Kroll, F. Narin, Linkage between research sponsorship and patented eye-care technology, To be published (1996).Google Scholar
- 14.J. Anderson, N. Williams, D. Seemungal, F. Narin, D. Olivastro, Human genetic technology: Exploring the links between science and innovation. To be published inTechnology Analysis and Strategic Management, (1996).Google Scholar
- 15.F. Narin, “Linking Biomedical Research to Outcomes — The Role of Bibliometrics and Patent Analysis”, Presented at The Economics Round Table, National Institutes of Health, (1995), 27pp.Google Scholar