Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review

被引:34
|
作者
Derrick, Gemma E. [1 ]
Pavone, Vincenzo [1 ]
机构
[1] CSIC, Inst Policies & Publ Good, Madrid 28037, Spain
关键词
democratisation of science; research evaluation; science and innovation policy; public engagement; RESEARCH QUALITY; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; DELIBERATION; RELIABILITY; ASSESSMENTS; EFFICIENCY; SPAIN;
D O I
10.1093/scipol/sct007
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The ability of metrics to represent complex information about research in an accessible format has previously been overlooked in preference to debate about their shortcomings as research evaluation tools. Here, we argue that bibliometrics have the potential to widen scientific participation by allowing non-academic stakeholders to access scientific decision making, thereby increasing the democratisation of science. Government policies from 3 countries (UK, Australia and Spain) are reviewed. Each country outlines a commitment to the democratisation of science for one set of policies whilst ignoring this commitment when developing parallel research evaluation policies. We propose a change in dialogue from whether bibliometrics should be used to how they should be used in future evaluations. Future research policies should take advantage of bibliometrics to foster greater democratisation of research to create more socially-reflexive evaluation systems.
引用
收藏
页码:563 / 575
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics
    Giovanni Abramo
    Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
    [J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 87 : 499 - 514
  • [2] Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics
    Abramo, Giovanni
    D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2011, 87 (03) : 499 - 514
  • [3] Informed peer review and uninformed bibliometrics?
    Neufeld, Joerg
    von Ins, Markus
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2011, 20 (01) : 31 - 46
  • [4] Key Points of Discussion in Scientific Research Evaluation: Peer Review, Bibliometrics and Relevance
    Fernanda Sarthou, Nerina
    [J]. REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS SOCIALES, 2016, (58) : 76 - 86
  • [5] National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings
    Giovanni Abramo
    Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
    Flavia Di Costa
    [J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 89 : 929 - 941
  • [6] National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings
    Abramo, Giovanni
    D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea
    Di Costa, Flavia
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2011, 89 (03) : 929 - 941
  • [7] Community Engagement in Research: Frameworks for Education and Peer Review
    Ahmed, Syed M.
    Palermo, Ann-Gel S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2010, 100 (08) : 1380 - 1387
  • [8] On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises
    Baccini, Alberto
    Barabesi, Lucio
    De Nicolao, Giuseppe
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (11):
  • [9] Comment to: Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise
    Bertocchi, Graziella
    Gambardella, Alfonso
    Jappelli, Tullio
    Nappi, Carmela Anna
    Peracchi, Franco
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2016, 108 (01) : 349 - 353
  • [10] Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise Reply
    Baccini, Alberto
    De Nicolao, Giuseppe
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2016, 108 (03) : 1675 - 1684