Requirements for research assessments
There are huge differences in mission, emphasis, inherent capability, and targeted utilization of research among scientific institutions. Hence, when it comes to assessments, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot meet the goal(s) of these assessments. Probably even larger differences exist between individuals, research teams and departments.
It is up to the research community to come up with objective, sound, reliable, easy to use, easy to understand, scalable, and sustainable methodologies, techniques, and tools for all
funding), output, quality, impact, social impact, etc. ( Moed & Plume, 2011 ). Most indicators are calculated through bibliometric measurements such as publication and citation counts, patent counts, translational contracts, and even alternative metrics. Established citation databases, such as Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, extended with specialized analytic tools such as InCites and Scival, are the main sources providing commonly used indicators. Waltman (2016) presented an in-depth overview of the main bibliographic databases and indicators, and made a distinction
conjure an imaginary of quantification and measurement ( Gielen, 2013 ; Van Haesebrouck, 2018), but proves a valuable tool to disclose and centralize the multifarious results of arts & design research in Flanders—which in turn facilitates discussion and interaction on its subjects, methods and outcomes. Advertent of the dual role the registration format might play, a new design of the FRIS database segment for artistic & design research outcomes was drafted:
This updated design of the FRIS database segment for arts & design research outcomes explicitly recognizes the
breakthroughs in science
• Invent significant
and technology relying on the
• Forming new theories, methods,
• Technological radiation produces
formation of large scientific
standards and tools in this field
• Break new ground in key
significant economic benefits
• Accumulate basic data and provide
• Important original innovation for
• Creating first-class scientists and
an open and shared analytical
• Train first
could help researchers, universities, news organisations, governments and scientific publishers to assess the press uptake of published research. With the new method, this can be achieved more quickly and on a larger scale than before.
Kayvan Kousha (email@example.com) developed the research questions and methods, collected the data, conducted the analysis and wrote the main body of the paper. Mike Thelwall (firstname.lastname@example.org) deigned a tool for citation extraction from digitised newspapers and helped to write the paper
. Nikiforova, A. Cernickins, and N. Pavlova, "Discussing the difference between model driven architecture and model driven development in the context of supporting tools," in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA) 2009 , September 2009, pp. 1-6.
W. Royce, "Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques," in Proceedings of WESTCON. San Francisco: IEEE Press, 1970, pp. 1-9.
B. Boehm, "A spiral model of development and enhancement," ACM SIGSOFT
Xiaoqiu Le, Chenyu Mao, Yuanbiao He, Changlei Fu and Liyuan Xu
2015 http://beyondthebookcast.com/from-stm-tech-trends-for-2015/ also reported that the journal article has been at the center of a “hub and spoke” publishing model associated with videos, graphs and tables, and various digital artifacts. A publication in this sense is meant to be a software tool and service platform that provides a better understanding of its content, while supporting easy exploration of knowledge within it and related to it. These trends suggest a fundamental change in the authoring of academic papers and consequently in their patterns of use