scispace - formally typeset
D

Diana Hicks

Researcher at Georgia Institute of Technology

Publications -  98
Citations -  7466

Diana Hicks is an academic researcher from Georgia Institute of Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Bibliometrics & Excellence. The author has an hindex of 33, co-authored 95 publications receiving 6441 citations. Previous affiliations of Diana Hicks include University of Sussex.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics

TL;DR: Zehn Grundsatze um Forschung zu bewerten, drangen Diana Hicks, Paul Wouters und Kollegen einiges zusammen wirkt.
Journal ArticleDOI

Performance-based university research funding systems

TL;DR: This article found general lessons in the accumulated experience with performance-based research funding systems (PRFSs) that can serve to enrich our understanding of how research policy and innovation systems are evolving and link the PRFS experience with the public management literature, particularly new public management, and understanding of public sector performance evaluation systems.
Journal ArticleDOI

What Is an Emerging Technology

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose five attributes that feature in the emergence of novel technologies: (i) radical novelty, relatively fast growth, coherence, prominent impact, and uncertainty and ambiguity.
Journal ArticleDOI

Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge

TL;DR: This paper explores companies' reasons for publishing in the scientific and technical literature; reasons that turn on the need to link with other research organizations, as seen in other areas of technical knowledge exchange.
Book ChapterDOI

The Four Literatures of Social Science

Diana Hicks
TL;DR: In this article, a review of bibliometric studies of the social sciences and humanities is presented, and the authors argue that by ignoring the three other literatures of social science bibliometric evaluation produces a distorted picture of social sciences fields.