Effects of the durability of scientific literature at the group level: Case study of chemistry research groups in the Netherlands

In this study an analysis of the effects of the different types of durability on the bibliometric performance at the group level is presented. The scientific production during the period of 1991–2000 of a set of 158 Dutch research groups in chemistry is studied considering several bibliometric indicators in the perspective of the durability of the publications in terms of the citations received. Two citation windows have been considered for the analysis of the effect of the enlargement of the citation period, one including the citations received in the same period of publications (1991–2000) and a second one including eight years more (1991–2008). In addition, qualitative indicators provided by a committee of experts who evaluated the research groups have been analyzed in order to study the relationship between qualitative indicators and quantitative measures, in particular these of durability. Results show that production with “normal” durability is the most rewarded both according to bibliometric indicators and qualitative assessments given by experts. We also find that publications with a delayed pattern do not represent a major problem in the assessment of research groups, as those groups with a higher share of this type of publications do not improve their assessment when the citation window is substantially enlarged. Several discussions are presented regarding the importance of durability analysis in the framework of research assessment situations.

► First study on the effects of durability of scientific publications at the group level.
► First study combining the analysis of durability of scientific publications with qualitative indicators.
► ‘Delayed’ patterns in citations do not represent a problem in the assessment of research groups.
► Production with a ‘normal’ durability is the most rewarded both from bibliometrics and peer review.
► Adequate citation windows are sufficient to provide reliable bibliometric indicators correlated with peer-review.