• Image-67

  • About this instrument: The initial structure is derived from an evaluation instrument for quantitative research[1] and amended to incorporate criteria identified by Glanzel (1996)[2]. This document is intended for quite different purposes than those presumed by Glanzel, whose concern it is to support standardization in methodology and terminology between bibliometric researchers. This tool is meant to support critical evaluation of bibliometric research for non-experts in this subspecialty area, with the purpose of practical application of the results within the framework of Evidence-based Library and Information Practice.

    I would be pleased to receive comments and suggestions for the improvement of this evaluative tool. I've added a comments box at the very end for that purpose. Please feel free to contact me at cperryman@mail.twu.edu.


    Carol Perryman, Ph.D.
    Assistant Professor, School of Library and Information Studies
    Texas Woman's University
    P.O. Box 425438
    Denton, TX 76204-5438
    Phone: (940) 898-2612
    Fax: (940) 898-2611
    Email: CPerryman@mail.twu.edu
    Research page: cperryman.com

    [1] Evaluation Tool for Quantitative Research Studies, published by the Health Care Research and Development Unit (HCPRDU), University of Salford, 2005. Available http://www.fhsc.salford.ac.uk/hcprdu/quantitative.htm

    [2] Glanzel W. (1996). The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics, 35(2):167-176.


    I am most grateful to Lorie Kloda, editor of the Evidence Summaries section of the open access journal, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP), for having shared this document with colleague Vincent Larivière, who in turn suggested additions.

    • Section 1: Basic Information 
    • Section 2: Background information: building on knowledge 
    • Section 3: Data set: Acquisition and analysis 
    • Section 4: Statistical analysis 
    • Section 5: Findings, contributions, and generalizability 
    • Section 6: Your own conclusions 

    • By clicking on 'Email document' below, you will be leaving the form, and won't be able to print your responses. If you want to print, select 'print form' before you email. Of course, you can also print the email.

    •  
    • Should be Empty: