{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019736842105263157, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006030701754385965, 'mean_word_length': 5.660583941605839, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Economist's View on Bibliometrically Measuring Scientific Research

The impact of academic research on economic performance is nowadays receiving widespread attention. Academic science no longer is considered exogenous to the economic system. Universities and other public research institutes are increasingly expected to contribute to the performance of their countries. Public authorities demand that their university system deliver value for money in the competitive world of science and technology. In addition, increasing budgetary stringency forces policymakers to make tough choices in the allocation of resources that affect the science system. Research output is continuously assessed, and funding is made contingent on the quality of the research performed. Individual researchers, as well as complete research groups and institutes, are evaluated and assessed at regular intervals, with research funding increasingly being concentrated in centers of excellence. This should ensure the breeding ground for scientific novelty and breakthroughs that fuel the innovation process in society. An important condition for this research assessment and monitoring process is to have the appropriate instruments in place to be successful in picking winners. From this perspective, bibliometrics is increasingly being turned to as a feasible, fairly objective methodology that builds on large-scale, standardized data sources to evaluate research output. This has to be compared to the alternative of the peer review process, which is typically much more time consuming and has a larger probability of being more subjective. Nevertheless, as van Raan (this issue) indicates, the two methodologies have to be seen as complementary.1 The output of MEASUREMENT, 3(1), 33–37 Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.