Donovan, Claire ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6105-7794 (2007) Introduction: future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact. Science and Public Policy, 34 (8). pp. 538-542. ISSN 0302-3427 (Print), 1471-5430 (Online) (doi:10.3152/030234207X256529)

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

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).

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	metrics, bibliometrics, peer review, research quality, research impact
Subjects:	L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB2300 Higher Education
Faculty / School / Research Centre / Research Group:	Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > School of Education (EDU)
Last Modified:	28 Oct 2020 15:18
URI:	http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/29616

Actions (login required)

View Item