Journal article

Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings

Harnad S ...see all

Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 8, issue 1 (2008) pp. 103-107

  • 114

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 49

    Citations

    Citations of this article.
Sign in to save reference

Abstract

A rich and diverse set of potential bibliometric and scientometric predictors of research
performance quality and importance are emerging today-from the classic metrics (publication
counts, journal impact factors and individual article/author citation counts) to promising new online
metrics such as download counts, hub/authority scores and growth/decay chronometrics. In and of
themselves, however, metrics are circular: They need to be jointly tested and validated against what
it is that they purport to measure and predict, with each metric weighted according to its contribution
to their joint predictive power. The natural criterion against which to validate metrics is expert evaluation
by peers; a unique opportunity to do this is offered by the 2008 UK Research Assessment Exercise,
in which a full spectrum of metrics can be jointly tested, field by field, against peer rankings.

Author-supplied keywords

  • Bibliometrics
  • Citation analysis
  • Journal impact factor
  • Metric validation
  • Multiple regression
  • Peer review
  • Research assessment
  • Scientometrics
  • Web metrics

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Get full text

Authors

  • Stevan Harnad

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free