Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientometric Studies and Their Role in Research Policy of Two Research Councils in the Netherlands

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past 30 years various scientometric analyses have provided input data for research policy objectives of research institutions in the Netherlands. In this article we discuss several pioneering studies performed on behalf of the research councils for physics (FOM) and technical sciences (STW), which have played an important role in the early development of scientometrics in this country. The motives for these studies, the results and the influence on research policy are discussed. Relations to present themes in scientometric investigations are drawn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P. Wouters, The Citation Culture, PhD Thesis, Department of Science Dynamics, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1999.

  2. J. J. Broeder, K. H. Chang, D. G. B. J. Dieks, L. S. J. M. Henkens, C. M. E. Otten, Physics in The Netherlands: a selection of Dutch contributions to physics in the first 30 years after the second world war, Vol I–II, FOM, Utrecht, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. Chang, D. Dieks, P. Edelman, Evaluation and survey of a subfield of physics. Magnetic resonance and relaxation studies in The Netherlands, FOM-37175, FOM, Utrecht, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Dieks, K. H. Chang, Differences in impact of scientific publications: Some indices derived from a citation analysis, Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976) 247-267.

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research, some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy, Research Policy, 112 (1983) 61-90.

    Google Scholar 

  6. E. J. Rinia, Th. N. Van Leeuwen, H. G. Van Vuren, A. F. J. Van Raan, Comparing a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands, Research Policy, 27 (1998) 95-107.

    Google Scholar 

  7. C. J. G. Bakker, Elektronenmicroscopie in Nederland, overzicht en evaluatie van 40 jaar speur-en ontwikkelingswerk in een technisch-fysisch specialisme, FOM-43105, FOM, Utrecht, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  8. It should be consider that almost half of the Dutch publication output studied here is published in conference proceedings and that most important publications (as identified by experts) are written in the Dutch language. Moreover, for some important contributors, their number of publications equals their number of patents, indicating the commercial interests in this subfield.

  9. C. Le Pair, The citation gap of applicable science, Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Elsevier, 1988, pp 537-553.

  10. W. P. Van Els, C. N. M. Jansz, C. Le Pair, The citation gap between printed and instrumental output of technological research: the case of the electron microscope, Scientometrics, 17 (1989) 415-425.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. Le Pair, Formal evaluation methods: Their utility and limitations, Paper presented to the Workshop on evaluating science and scientists, 8–10 October 1993, Pultusk, Poland.

  12. C. N. M. Jansz, C. Le Pair, Bibliometric invisibility of technological advances. In: P. Weingart et al. (Eds), Representations of Science and Technology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, 315-326, DSWO Press, Leiden, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. F. C. H. D. Van Den Beemt, A. F. J. Van Raan, Evaluating research proposals, Nature, 375 (1995) 272.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. M. Weinberg, Criteria for Scientific Choice, Minerva, 1 (1963) 159-171.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. Le Pair, Wederzijdse beïnvloeding van wetenschappelijke disciplines in het WO, deel I, FOM-41891/1, FOM, Utrecht, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. Le Pair, Switching between academic disciplines in universities in The Netherlands, Scientometrics, 2 (1980) 177-191.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Commission on Human Resources, Field mobility of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. Van Houten, Wederzijdse beīnvloeding van wetenschappelijke disciplines in het WO, deel II, FOM-51664/1, FOM, Utrecht, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. Van Houten, H. G. Van Vuren, C. Le Pair, G. Dijkhuis, Migration of physicists to other academic disciplines: situation in The Netherlands, Scientometrics, 5 (1983) 257-267.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. R. Miedema et al., Vooruitzichten op de werkgelegenheid voor fysici, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Natuurkunde, 39 (1973) 106-114.

    Google Scholar 

  21. G. M. M. Foekema, P. Koeze, C. Le Pair, Studiekeuzemotieven van eerste-en tweedejaars natuurkundestudenten, FOM-33371/3, FOM, Utrecht, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Koeze, De Nederlandse natuurkundigen, Enige statistische gegevens over de afstudeergeneraties 1920 tot 1971, FOM-35022, FOM, Utrecht, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  23. P. B. De Laat, De arbeidsmarkt voor fysici, Resultaten van een Delphi-onderzoek naar vraag, aanbod en overschot in 1980 en 1990, FOM-36809, FOM, Utrecht, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  24. By a Delphi-procedure a panel is consulted in several rounds about information supplied to it and asked to arrive at a consensus about a forecast. Members of the panel do not directly interact and are anonymous, to avoid the interference of psychological factors. In each round, however, members of the panel given feed back by means of a summary of the result of the foregoing round. Basically, the method is an opinion poll, organised in a scientific way.

  25. K. M. H. Maessen, Studenten wetenschappelijk onderwijs natuurkunde en technische natuurkunde (kwantiteit en kwaliteit), FOM-67687, FOM, Utrecht, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  26. W. De Konink, Faraday and Weinberg, FOM-31869/E, FOM, Utrecht, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  27. C. Le Pair, Decision making on grant application in a small country, Science Yugoslavia, 6 (1980) 137-143.

    Google Scholar 

  28. F. C. H. D. Van Den Beemt, C. Le Pair, Grading the Grain: consistent evaluation of research proposals, Research Evaluation, 1 (1991) 3-10.

    Google Scholar 

  29. H. Chang, D. Dieks, The Dutch output of publications in physics, Research Policy, 5 (1976) 380-396.

    Google Scholar 

  30. E. J. Rinia, C. De Lange, The Dutch publication output in physics: 1979–1988, FOM-68726, FOM, Utrecht, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  31. W. GlÄnzel, A. Schubert, T. Braun, E. Rinia, M. Brocken, Physics in the European Union in the 80's, FOM-94,1483, FOM, Utrecht, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  32. J. Vlachy, The Dutch publication output in engineering sciences, STW, Utrecht, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  33. A. Van Heeringen, C. A. M. Mombers, R. Van Venetie, Science and Technology Indicators 1983. A comparison of The Netherlands with other countries on the basis of quantitative data, RAWB, The Hague, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  34. H. Small, B. C. Griffith, The structure of scientific literature, 1: Identifying and graphing specialties, Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17-40.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nederlands Observatorium voor Wetenschap en Technologie (NOWT), Wetenschaps-en Technologie-Indicatoren 1998, Ministerie OC&W, Zoetermeer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  36. C. Mombers, R. C. G. Heijna, A. Van Heeringen, Octrooistatistieken als technologie-indicator, RAWB, Den Haag, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. King, A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation, Journal of Information Science, 13 (1987) 261-276.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Verkenningscommissie Natuurkundig Onderzoek, Natuurkunde in Nederland: Overzicht en vooruitzicht, Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, 1984, ISBN 90 346 0390 3.

  39. Th. N. Van Leeuwen, E. J. Rinia, A. F. J. Van Raan, Bibliometric Profiles of Academic Physics Research in The Netherlands, Report CWTS 96-09, Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  40. H. F. Moed, R. E. De Bruin, Th. N. Van Leeuwen, New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description overview of indicators and first applications, Scientometrics, 33 (1995) 381-422.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Ed J. Rinia

Authors
  1. Ed J. Rinia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rinia, E.J. Scientometric Studies and Their Role in Research Policy of Two Research Councils in the Netherlands. Scientometrics 47, 363–378 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005699312530

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005699312530

Keywords

Search

Navigation