IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2013i5p563-575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Gemma E. Derrick
  • Vincenzo Pavone

Abstract

The ability of metrics to represent complex information about research in an accessible format has previously been overlooked in preference to debate about their shortcomings as research evaluation tools. Here, we argue that bibliometrics have the potential to widen scientific participation by allowing non-academic stakeholders to access scientific decision making, thereby increasing the democratisation of science. Government policies from 3 countries (UK, Australia and Spain) are reviewed. Each country outlines a commitment to the democratisation of science for one set of policies whilst ignoring this commitment when developing parallel research evaluation policies. We propose a change in dialogue from whether bibliometrics should be used to how they should be used in future evaluations. Future research policies should take advantage of bibliometrics to foster greater democratisation of research to create more socially-reflexive evaluation systems. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Gemma E. Derrick & Vincenzo Pavone, 2013. "Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(5), pages 563-575, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2013:i:5:p:563-575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct007
    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. Thomas Zacharewicz & Benedetto Lepori & Emanuela Reale & Koen Jonkers, 2019. "Performance-based research funding in EU Member States—a comparative assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 105-115.
    2. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    3. Koen Jonkers & Thomas Zacharewicz, 2016. "Research Performance Based Funding Systems: a Comparative Assessment," JRC Research Reports JRC101043, Joint Research Centre.
    4. Boglárka Németh & Károly Németh & Jon N. Procter, 2021. "Informed Geoheritage Conservation: Determinant Analysis Based on Bibliometric and Sustainability Indicators Using Ordination Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-31, May.
    5. Kate Williams, 2022. "Hybrid knowledge production and evaluation at the World Bank [The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 513-527.
    6. 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.
    7. Mikhail Gershman & Galina Kitova, 2017. "Assessing Government Support for Research and Innovation in Russian Universities," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(3), pages 1067-1084, September.
    8. Mikhail A. Gershman & Galina A. Kitova, 2016. "Evaluation of Research and Innovation Policies: The Case of Russian Universities," HSE Working papers WP BRP 57/STI/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

    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:40:y:2013:i:5:p:563-575. 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.