How to perceive quantitative indicators when assessing research policies

Open access


The purpose of our contribution is to discuss shortcomings of purely descriptive quantitative evaluation of research policies – based either on inputs (public investment, number of researchers), or outputs (publications, number of patents). To give an example we compare selected indicators across Visegrad countries in the period between 2006 and 2015. We conclude that both quantitative and qualitative perspectives as well as societal and political context should be taken into account when the performance of any R&D system and the impact of public investments into a public R&D sector are scrutinized.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Bertelsmann S. (2015): 2015 Research and Innovation Report [online].

  • [2] Český statistický úřad (2018a): Direct public support of research and development – 2016 [online] Praha.

  • [3] Český statistický úřad (2018b): Patentová statistika [online] Praha.

  • [4] Dickinson J. P. (1986): Science and scientific researches in modern societies. Unesco.

  • [5] European Commission (2010): EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commision. COM(2010) 2020.

  • [6] European Commission (2018): The 2018 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard [online].

  • [7] European Research Council (2018): From mini-organs to ultrafast filming: ERC invests in early career researchers [online] Praha.

  • [8] Eurostat (2018): Science technology digital society [online].

  • [9] Good B. et al. (2015): Counting Quality? The Czech performance-based research funding system. Research Evaluation 24 91–105.

  • [10] Gough M. (2016): Measuring the impact of R&D spending [online].

  • [11] Kostič. M. (2015): Výdaje na výzkum a vývoj a tematické zaměření evropských investic ve vybraných nových členských státech EU. ERGO 10 1 11–21.

  • [12] OECD. (2018): OECD Research and Development Expenditure in Industry 2018 [online].

  • [13] Rose R. (1993): Drawing in Public Policy. Chatman House Publisers New Jersey.

  • [14] Šebek M. (2018): Zeměkoule je placatá a Nature Index je drsně kafemlejnkovitá metoda hodnocení? [online].

  • [15] Technologické centrum AV ČR (2018): ERC choropleth map [online].

  • [16] Technopolis Group (2011): Kvalita výzkumu institucionální financování a hodnocení výzkumu v České republice a v zahraničí [online].

  • [17] UNESCO (2010): UNESCO Science Report 2010: „The Current Status of Science around the World.“ UNESCO Publishing Paris.

  • [18] Vaněček J. (2014): The effect of performance-based research funding on output of R&D results in the Czech Republic. Scientometrics. 98 657-681.

  • [19] World Bank (2018): National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators [online].

  • [20] Young M. (2014): Coarsely Ground. In: Brankovič. J. et al. (eds.): Global Challenges Local Responses in Higher Education. Higher Education Research in the 21st Century Series. SensePublishers Rotterdam 15–33.

Gesamte Zeit Letztes Jahr Letzte 30 Tage
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 73 73 3
PDF Downloads 63 63 6