Skip to main content
  • Home
  • About
  • Who we are
  • News
  • Events
  • Publications
  • Search
  • Independent Science for Development CouncilISDC
    • Home
    • Who we are
    • News
    • Events
    • Publications
    • Featured Projects
      • Inclusive Innovation
        • Agricultural Systems Special Issue
      • Proposal Reviews
        • 2025-30 Portfolio
        • Reform Advice
      • Foresight & Trade-Offs
        • Megatrends
      • QoR4D
      • Comparative Advantage
  • Standing Panel on Impact AssessmentSPIA
    • Who We Are
      • SPIA Team
      • Our Mandate
      • Impact Assessment Focal Points
      • SPIA Affiliates Network
    • What We Do
      • Country Studies
        • Community of Practice
      • Causal Impact Assessment
      • Use of Evidence
    • Where We Work
      • Bangladesh Study
      • Ethiopia Study
      • Uganda Study
      • Vietnam Study
    • Resources
      • Publications
      • News & Blogs
        • Blog Series on Qualitative Methods for Impact Assessment
      • Data Resources
        • Stocktake Data
        • Replication Files
        • SPIA-emLab Agricultural Interventions Database
      • Webinars
      • Events
  • Evaluation
    • Who we are
    • News
    • Events
    • Publications
    • Evaluations
      • CGIAR Center External Reviews (CER)
      • Learning on CGIAR's Ways of Working
      • Science Group Evaluations
      • Platform Evaluations
        • CGIAR Genebank Platform Evaluation
        • CGIAR GENDER Platform Evaluation
        • CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform
        • CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture
    • Framework and Policy
      • Evaluative Learning Hub
      • Evaluation Method Notes Resource Hub
      • Management Engagement and Response Resource Hub
      • Evaluating Quality of Science for Sustainable Development
      • Evaluability Assessments – Enhancing Pathway to Impact
      • Evaluation Guidelines
  • Independent Science for Development CouncilISDC
  • Standing Panel on Impact AssessmentSPIA
  • Evaluation
Back to IAES Main Menu
  • Who we are
  • News
  • Events
  • Publications
  • Evaluations
    • CGIAR Center External Reviews (CER)
    • Learning on CGIAR's Ways of Working
    • Science Group Evaluations
    • Platform Evaluations
      • CGIAR Genebank Platform Evaluation
      • CGIAR GENDER Platform Evaluation
      • CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform
      • CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture
  • Framework and Policy
    • Evaluative Learning Hub
    • Evaluation Method Notes Resource Hub
    • Management Engagement and Response Resource Hub
    • Evaluating Quality of Science for Sustainable Development
    • Evaluability Assessments – Enhancing Pathway to Impact
    • Evaluation Guidelines
Journal Articles

Evaluating Quality of Science in CGIAR Research Programs: Use of Bibliometrics

You are here

  • Home
  • Evaluation
  • Publications
  • Evaluating Quality of Science in CGIAR Research Programs: Use of Bibliometrics

Abstract

When evaluating Quality of Science (QoS) in the context of development initiatives, it is essential to define adequate criteria. The objective of this perspective paper is to show how altmetric and bibliometric indicators have been used to support the evaluation of QoS in the 2020 Review of the Phase 2-CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs, 2017–2022), where, for the first time, the Quality of Research for Development (QoR4D) frame of reference has been utilized across the entire CGIAR CRP portfolio. Overall, the CRP review showed a significant output of scientific publications during the period 2017–2020, with 4,872 articles, 220,101 references, and 7.1 citations per article. Additionally, wider interest in scientific publications is demonstrated by good to high altmetrics, with average attention scores ranging from 70.8 to 806.9 with an average of 425.1. The use of selected bibliometrics was shown to be an adequate tool, for use together with other qualitative indicators to evaluate the QoS in the 12 CRPs. The CRP review process clearly demonstrated that standardized, harmonized and consistent data on research output is paramount to provide high-quality quantitative instruments and should be a priority throughout the transition toward One CGIAR. Therefore, we conclude that the QoR4D framework should be augmented by standardized bibliometric indicators embedded in measurement frameworks within the new One CGIAR. Finally, its practical utilization in monitoring and evaluation should be supported with clear guidelines.

Citation

Rünzel, M., Sarfatti, P., & Negroustoueva, S. (2021). Evaluating quality of science in CGIAR research programs: Use of bibliometrics. Outlook on Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270211024271

Author(s)

Rünzel, M., Sarfatti, P., & Negroustoueva, S.

Share on

Evaluation
Issued on 2021
  • Read More
  • Read More

Related Publications

Evaluation Reports & Reviews
Evaluation
Issued on 2026

CGIAR Center External Reviews: International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Review Report

Reference Materials
Evaluation
Issued on 2026

CGIAR Center External Reviews: Template Terms of Reference

Technical Notes
Evaluation
Issued on 2026

Comparative Advantage and Application to CGIAR Program Evaluation. Methods Note

More publications

Related News

News
Evaluation
10 Sep 2026

Evaluating Comparative Advantage in CGIAR

Vacancy announcements
Evaluation
19 Aug 2026

Opening for a Senior Evaluation Manager

News
Evaluation
31 Jul 2026

Evaluating Scaling Efforts: New Blog on BetterEvaluation Webpage

More News

CGIAR Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service (IAES)

Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT
Via di San Domenico,1
00153 Rome, Italy
  • IAES@cgiar.org
  • (39-06) 61181

Follow Us

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
  • Terms and conditions
  • © CGIAR 2026

IAES provides operational support as the secretariat for the Independent Science for Development Council and the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, and implements CGIAR’s multi-year, independent evaluation plan as approved by the CGIAR’s System Council.