Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Stefan Hornbostel x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract  

This article focusses on third party funding of research in German universities. The centralquestion is, whether funding data can function as suitable indicators for the measurement ofresearch performance of university departments. After a brief description of the importance andthe extent of third party funding in the German system of research funding, the quality of data isdiscussed and the funding indicator is compared with bibliometric indicators. Resultened, one cansay that in subjects where external funding of research is usual, the funding indicator points to thesame direction as other indicators do. Because of the peer review process involved in grantawarding, a funding indicator is in many subjects a suitable indicator to evaluate R&D impacts.

Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors: Christian Gumpenberger, Juan Gorraiz, Wolfgang Glänzel, Koenrad Debackere, Stefan Hornbostel and Sybille Hinze
Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors: Juan Gorraiz, Christian Gumpenberger, Wolfgang Glänzel, Koenraad Debackere, Stefan Hornbostel and Sybille Hinze
Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors: Juan Gorraiz, Christian Gumpenberger, Stefan Hornbostel, Sybille Hinze, Wolfgang Glänzel and Koenraad Debackere
Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors: Stefan Hornbostel, Susan Böhmer, Bernd Klingsporn, Jörg Neufeld and Markus von Ins

Abstract  

The German Research Foundation’s (DFG) Emmy Noether Programme aims to fund excellent young researchers in the postdoctoral phase and, in particular, to open up an alternative to the traditional route to professorial qualification via the Habilitation (venia legendi). This paper seeks to evaluate this funding programme with a combination of methods made up of questionnaires, interviews, appraisals of the reviews, and bibliometric analyses. The key success criteria in this respect are the frequency of professorial appointments plus excellent research performance demonstrated in the form of publications. Up to now, such postdoc programme evaluations have been conducted only scarcely. In professional terms, approved applicants are actually clearly better placed. The personal career satisfaction level is also higher among funding recipients. Concerning publications and citations, some minor performance differences could be identified between approved and rejected applicants. Nevertheless, we can confirm that, on average, the reviewers indeed selected the slightly better performers from a relatively homogenous group of very high-performing applicants. However, a comparison between approved and rejected applicants did not show that participation in the programme had decisively influenced research performance in the examined fields of medicine and physics.

Restricted access