Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact

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’ (quantitat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inScience & public policy Vol. 34; no. 8; pp. 538 - 542
Main Author Donovan, Claire
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Beech Tree Publishing 01.10.2007
Subjects
Australia
Evaluation
Policy studies
Science and technology
Science policy
United Kingdom
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary: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).
Bibliography:istex:1668AFB52A2A7FAE2FE9152CE98400FF8027D911
ark:/67375/HXZ-M6BDXF0Q-3
The authors of this special issue are grateful to Roy MacLeod, who encouraged the development of this project, Bill Page for his enthusiasm in taking on this special edition, and the referees who, in addition to their insightful comments on papers, considered issues raised by the collection as a whole and so helped to shape this introductory essay. Most thanks belong to the authors for their willingness to take aim at the constantly moving target of science policy and for entering into the spirit of engaging not only with colleagues in scientometrics and science governance but also with the broader academic community, research managers and evaluators and policy-makers.
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0302-3427
1471-5430
DOI:10.3152/030234207X256529