IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v34y2007i8p565-574.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach

Author

Listed:
  • Linda Butler

Abstract

The use of quantitative performance measures to assess the quality of university research is being introduced in Australia and the UK. This paper presents the case for maintaining a balanced approach. It argues that ‘metrics’ have their place, and can make the process more efficient and cost-effective, but that peer review must be retained as a central element in any research assessment exercise. The role of metrics is as ‘a trigger to the recognition of anomalies’, rather than as a straight replacement for peer review. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Butler, 2007. "Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 565-574, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:8:p:565-574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234207X254404
    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. 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. Carla Facchini & Lorenzo Sacconi & Magalì Fia, 2019. "La governance delle universita' italiane dopo la Riforma Gelmini: un'indagine empirica sui processi decisionali," Econometica Working Papers wp68, Econometica.
    4. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    5. Pablo D’Este & Puay Tang & Surya Mahdi & Andy Neely & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo, 2013. "The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 481-502, May.
    6. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Ranking research institutions by the number of highly-cited articles per scientist," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 915-923.
    7. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2014. "Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 89-97.
    8. Giovanni Abramo & Corrado Costa & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2015. "A multivariate stochastic model to assess research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1755-1772, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2015. "Ranking Games," Evaluation Review, , vol. 39(1), pages 102-129, February.
    11. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Should the research performance of scientists be distinguished by gender?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 25-38.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2014. "How do you define and measure research productivity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1129-1144, November.
    14. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2016. "A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 889-901.
    15. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 514-525.
    16. Michael C. Calver & Maggie Lilith & Christopher R. Dickman, 2013. "A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAEs) restrict literature availability for nature conservation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 243-255, April.
    17. Steffen Lemke & Athanasios Mazarakis & Isabella Peters, 2021. "Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(6), pages 777-792, June.
    18. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "A methodology to compute the territorial productivity of scientists: The case of Italy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 675-685.
    19. Barbara S. Lancho-Barrantes & Francisco J. Cantu-Ortiz, 2021. "Quantifying the publication preferences of leading research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2269-2310, March.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Soldatenkova, Anastasiia, 2016. "The ratio of top scientists to the academic staff as an indicator of the competitive strength of universities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 596-605.
    21. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2014. "Variability of research performance across disciplines within universities in non-competitive higher education systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 777-795, February.
    22. Brooks, Chris & Fenton, Evelyn M. & Walker, James T., 2014. "Gender and the evaluation of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 990-1001.

    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:565-574. 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.