IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v34y2007i8p538-542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact

Author

Listed:
  • Claire Donovan

Abstract

The idea for this special issue arose from observing contrary developments in the design of national research assessment schemes in the UK and Australia during 2006 and 2007. Alternative pathways were being forged, determined, on the one hand, by the perceived relative merits of ‘metrics’ (quantitative measures of research performance) and peer judgement and, on the other hand, by the value attached to scientific excellence (‘quality’) versus usefulness (‘impact’). This special issue presents a broad range of provocative academic opinion on preferred future pathways for science policy and research assessment. It unpacks the apparent dichotomies of metrics vs peer review and quality vs impact, and considers the hazards of adopting research evaluation policies in isolation from wider developments in scientometrics (the science of research evaluation) and divorced from the practical experience of other nations (policy learning). Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire Donovan, 2007. "Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 538-542, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:8:p:538-542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234207X256529
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Smith, Simon & Ward, Vicky & House, Allan, 2011. "‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1369-1379.
    2. Muzammil Tahira & Rose Alinda Alias & Aryati Bakri, 2013. "Scientometric assessment of engineering in Malaysians universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 865-879, September.
    3. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research governance in academia: are there alternatives to academic rankings?," IEW - Working Papers 423, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    5. Weixi Xie & Pengfei Jia & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2024. "Are reviewer scores consistent with citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4721-4740, August.
    6. Zoe Bulaitis, 2017. "Measuring impact in the humanities: Learning from accountability and economics in a contemporary history of cultural value," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Cassidy R Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2019. "Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    8. O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2013. "Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 767-777, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:8:p:538-542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.