Research evaluation: facing a scenario of challenges and uncertainties
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/15375Keywords:
research evaluation, peer review, bibliometric indicators, responsible metricsAbstract
The evaluation of science is necessary to promote high quality research and optimize
research investments. Peer review is the main system for evaluating the quality of science, carried
out by experts in the subjects to be assessed. The participation of other actors, whether social or
political, is of particular interest for assessing the social relevance of research. Bibliometric
indicators, applied with knowledge of their limitations, can be an important support for experts
because they provide objectivity and transparency. Today we are witnessing a movement to
reform the traditional evaluation system, fostered by the abusive and reductionist use of
quantitative indicators in the past, and by the need to establish more holistic approaches, to apply
metrics responsibly and to support the development of a more open and collaborative science.
Downloads
References
Abramo, G., y D’Angelo, C.A. (2021). The different responses of universities to introduction of performance-based research funding. Research Evaluation, 30(4), 514-528. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab022
Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
Brezis, E.S. y Birukou, A. (2020). Arbitrariness in the peer review process. Scientometrics, 123, 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation Indexes for Science. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S. y Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-6572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G. y Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
Martin, B.R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02129599
Merton, R.K. (1979). The sociology of science: an episodic memoir. Southern Illinois University Press.
Moed, H.F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 575-583. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X255179
Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M.H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.-M., Foeger, N. y Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biology, 18(7), e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics. The use of publications and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Computer Horizons
Priem, J. y Hemminger, M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i7.2874
Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R. y Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2009). Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. El profesional de la información, 18(5), 501-510. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2009.sep.03
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature of citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometric upon the science system: inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7
Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., Jones, R., Kain, R., Kerridge, S., Thelwall, M., Tinkler, J., Viney, I., Wouters, P., Hill, J. y Johnson, B. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. HEFCE. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 María Bordons, Daniela De Filippo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
