Wong, J and Gray, J (2010) A discussion of the research performance evaluation in building and construction management discipline: The journal impact factors (jif) and 'sci-index journals'. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
The trend of diminished funding, demands for greater efficiency and higher public accountability have led to a rapid expansion of interest in the bibliometric assessment of research performance of universities. A pilot research is conducted to provide a preliminary overview of the research performance of the building and construction schools or departments through the analysis of bibliometric indicators including the journal impact factor (JIF) published by Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). The suitability of bibliometric evaluation approaches as a measure of research quality in building and construction management research field is discussed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | research performance; building and construction; journal impact factor; isi; sci |
| Index terms: | management research, efficiency, journal, accountability, funding, performance evaluation, suitability |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, performance management, design criteria, liability law, research dissemination and communication, research design and methodology, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here