Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, Scutaru Cristian, Kreiter Carolin, Kölzow Silvana, Fischer Axel, Quarcoo David
Otto-Heubner-Centre, Charité, Free University Berlin and Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2008 Jun 13;6:6. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-6.
Institutional operating figures and benchmarking systems are important features for the implementation of efficacy in basic and applied sciences. They are needed for research evaluation and funding policy. However, the current policy settings for research evaluation urgently need review since there may be imbalances present in many areas.
The present study assessed benchmarking of research output. By the use of large data bases research output was categorized and analyzed. Specific areas of major research activity were identified by comparing publication density on different organ systems and inter- and intrafield comparison was performed for selected countries.
Novel density-equalizing mappings were constructed that illustrate trends of publication activity and identify subsets of major interest in a total of 5,527,558 published items. A dichotomy was present between Western countries such as the US, UK or Germany and Asian countries such as Japan, China or South Korea concerning research focuses.
The present study is the first large scale analysis of global research activity and output over the last 50 years. The presently described assessment of operating figures at the national and international level can be used to identify single areas of research that are heavily focused. Further research on qualitative output benchmarking is needed to improve current policy settings for research evaluation.
机构运营数据和基准系统是基础科学和应用科学中实现效能的重要特征。它们是研究评估和资助政策所必需的。然而，当前研究评估的政策设置迫切需要审查，因为许多领域可能存在失衡。
本研究评估了研究产出的基准。通过使用大型数据库对研究产出进行分类和分析。通过比较不同器官系统的发表密度来确定主要研究活动的特定领域，并对选定国家进行领域间和领域内比较。
构建了新的密度均衡映射，以说明发表活动趋势，并在总共5,527,558篇已发表文章中识别出主要感兴趣的子集。在诸如美国、英国或德国等西方国家与诸如日本、中国或韩国等亚洲国家之间，在研究重点方面存在二分法。
本研究是对过去50年全球研究活动和产出的首次大规模分析。目前所描述的国家和国际层面运营数据评估可用于识别高度集中的单一研究领域。需要进一步开展关于定性产出基准的研究，以改善当前的研究评估政策设置。
