Evaluating the Quality of Radiology Research: What Are the Rules of the Game?

Free first page


  • 1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The evaluation of scientific research: selected experiences. Paris, France: OECD/GD, 1997. Google Scholar
  • 2 Brinn T, Jones MJ, Pendlebury M. Measuring research quality: peer review 1, citation indices 0. Omega 2000;28:237–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Noyons EC, Buter RK, van Raan AF, et al. Mapping excellence in science and technology in Europe: life sciences. Report no. EC-PPLS CT-2002-0001. Leiden, the Netherlands: Universiteit Leiden, 2003. Google Scholar
  • 4 Festen C. Report on research management at Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus University Medical Center, 2004. Google Scholar
  • 5 Baum S. What can we learn from success? Acad Radiol 2006;13:1449–1452. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Maguire MA, Gore J. The current state of NIH funding of research in diagnostic radiology at US medical schools. J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2:436–443. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Levitt MD. Research funding: the means has become the end. J Lab Clin Med 2005;146:159. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 King J. A review of bibliometric and other science indicators in their role in research evaluation. J Inf Sci 1987;13:261–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Morris N. The developing role of departments. Res Policy 2002;31:817–833. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sizer J. The politics of performance assessment: lessons for higher education? a comment. Stud Higher Educ 1998;13:101–103. Google Scholar
  • 11 Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314:498–502. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Adam D. The counting house. Nature 2002;415:726–729. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Walter G, Bloch S, Hunt G, Fisher K. Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality. Med J Aust 2003;178:280–281. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Moed HF, Visser MS. Developing bibliometric indicators of research performance in computer science: an exploratory study. Research report to the Council for Physical Sciences of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). The Hague, the Netherlands: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 15 Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its developments and rationale. London, England: BMJ Books, 1999. Google Scholar
  • 16 Ernst E, Saradeth T, Resch KL. Drawbacks of peer review. Nature 1993;363:296. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 1990;263:1438–1441. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schnitzler K, Kazemzadeh F. Formelgebundene Finanzzuweisung des Staates an die Hochschulen: Erfahrungen aus dem europaeischen Ausland—HIS-Kurzinformationen A 11. Hannover, Germany: Hochschul Informations Systems, 1995. Google Scholar
  • 19 Itagaki MW, Pile-Spellman J. Factors associated with academic radiology research productivity. Radiology 2005;237:774–780. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Banal-Estanol A, Macho-Stadler I. Financial incentives in academia: research versus development—city university economics discussion papers 07/09. London, England: Department of Economics, City University, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 21 Jonisch AI, Kligerman S, Nagy E, Bhargavan M, Forman HP, Sunshine J. What characterizes academic radiology departments that secure large amounts of external funding for research? Acad Radiol 2006;13:1513–1516. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Itagaki MW. Impact of the National Institutes of Health on radiology research. Radiology 2008;247:213–219. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Moed H, Burger WJ, Frankfort JG, van Raan AF. The application of bibliometric indicators: important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics 1985;8:177–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Weale AR, Bailey M, Lear PA. The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004;4:14–21. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Luukkonen T. Bibliometrics and evaluation of research performance. Ann Med 1990;22:145–150. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Garfield E. On the literature of the social sciences and the usage and effectiveness of the social sciences citation index. Current Contents 1976;34. Google Scholar
  • 27 Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc Res 1997;33:1–7. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:16569–16572. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Nederhof A, van Raan AF. Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: a comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics. Scientometrics 1987;11:333–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 van Raan AF. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core off peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics 1996;36:397–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McMillan S, Narin F, Deeds D. An analysis of the critical role of public science and innovation: the case of biotechnology. Res Policy 2000;29:1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nelson R. The simple economics of basic scientific research. J Polit Econ 1959;67:297–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Florida R, Cohen WM. Engine or infrastructure? the university role in economic development. In: Branscomb LM, Florida R, eds. Industrializing knowledge: university-industry linkages in Japan and the United States. London, England: MIT Press, 1999;589–610. Google Scholar
  • 34 Andrews F. Scientific productivity: the effectiveness of research groups in six countries. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press/UNESCO, 1979. Google Scholar
  • 35 Paolillo JG, Brown WB. A multivariate approach to perceived innovation in R&D subsystems. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1979;26:36–39. Google Scholar
  • 36 Taylor J. The impact of performance indicators on the work of university academics: evidence from Australian universities. Higher Educ Q 2001;55:42–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2008