Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact
Authors: Donovan, C
Issue Date: 2007
Publisher: Beech Tree Publishing
Citation: Science and Public Policy, 34(8): 538 - 542, Oct 2007
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).
Description: Copyright @ 2007 Beech Tree Publishing
ISSN: 0302-3427
Appears in Collections:Politics and International Relations
Health Economics Research Group (HERG)
Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf55.11 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.