Skip to main content

Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields (2000) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

4 Findings
Pages 20-23

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 20...
... COSEPUP found good correlation among the findings produced by various indicators. For example, the qualitative judgments elicited by the virtual congress were similar to the results of quantitative indicators, such as publications cited and papers delivered at international congresses.
Read the entire page →
From page 21...
... In addition, the panel warned that the quality of US research could be affected in the future by the observed falloff in numbers of American students pursuing graduate-level mathematics. Using information from the Department of Energy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the materials science and engineering panel was able to identify facilities and infrastructure as the keys to research leadership.
Read the entire page →
From page 22...
... , but they developed similar sets of conclusions regarding the overall stature of US mathematics and each of its subfields. Journal analysis proved useful, but its value was mitigated by the amount of time required to analyze information and the need for analysts who were knowledgeable about the field on a worldwide basis.
Read the entire page →
From page 23...
... 4.5 Finciings About the Utility of Benchmarking On the basis of presentations made at the workshop by congressional and agency staff and feedback from disciplinary-society members who were briefed by panelists, COSEPUP found that benchmarking is potentially useful to the research communities in selected fields and in fields related to them, and to the government sponsors of research in selected and related fields. The panel reports were able to identify weaknesses in particular subfields and sub-subfields and to point out issues that need to be addressed in making policy.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • cosepup found
  • leadership survey
  • key factors
  • independent tests
  • international congresses

  • panel developed
  • conferences featuring
  • obtained results
  • panelists found
  • foreign representation

  • american students
  • laboratory location
  • bias related
  • people chosen
  • various indicators

  • panel decided
  • cosepup mathematics
  • fewer patients
  • experts whom
  • virtual congresses

  • journal analysis
  • benchmarking panel
  • real conferences
  • clinical trials
  • immunology panel

  • panel warned
  • selected fields
  • observed falloff
  • somewhat subjective
  • similar set


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.