Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact
Science and Public Policy, 2007, vol. 34, issue 8, 538-542
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). Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:8:p:538-542
Access Statistics for this article
Science and Public Policy is currently edited by Sybille Hinze, Jeong-Dong Lee and Nicholas Vonortas
More articles in Science and Public Policy from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().