{"title":"Citation Counts: Are They Good Predictors of Rae Scores? A Bibliometric Analysis of RAE 2001","authors":"S. Mahdi, P. D’Este, A. Neely","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1154053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The question of how best to assess research performance is clearly of great concern. In December 2007, HEFCE launched a national consultation on the future of Research Assessment, proposing that a Research Excellence Framework replaces the current Research Assessment Exercise. Fundamentally the Research Excellence Framework involves a shift to metrics. Views on the effectiveness of metrics for assessing research are mixed, so in this report we seek to explore empirically the question of whether metrics based on citation counts are strongly correlated with peer review assessments of research quality. We use data from RAE 2001, covering all departments and all universities in the UK. At a more disaggregated level the data used in this study includes: [i] the individual submissions made to RAE 2001 - a database of 203,743 research output records, one for each output submitted in RAE 2001; [ii] the citation counts for each of the submitted items when they are journal articles (141,789 of the original 203,743 items). We have interrogated the ISA Web of Science and produced citation counts for every article included in RAE 2001 where data is available. This gives us citation counts for 112,201 publications (55.1% of the original 203,743 submitted items); [iii] the actual RAE 2001 scores produced and published by HEFCE. We contrast these scores - which are based on peer review - with those that would have been produced had bibliometrics, based on citation counts, been used in RAE 2001. The findings of this analysis are: [i] citation counts are a reasonable proxy for peer assessment in some subjects, such as Biological Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Chemistry and Psychology; [ii] however, citation counts are a weak proxy for a large number of disciplines, including fields within Biomedical related subjects and Engineering-related subjects. This is despite the fact that these subjects have good coverage in the Web of Science, in terms of the outputs submitted to RAE 2001; [iii] as others have reported, the Web of Science offers only partial coverage in some subjects, and hence the use of bibliometrics becomes increasingly less valuable as we move from Biomedical, Physical Sciences and Engineering, to Socials Sciences, Literature and Arts and Humanities.","PeriodicalId":141770,"journal":{"name":"MRN All-Inclusive Business School Research Journal","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"58","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MRN All-Inclusive Business School Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1154053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 58
Abstract
The question of how best to assess research performance is clearly of great concern. In December 2007, HEFCE launched a national consultation on the future of Research Assessment, proposing that a Research Excellence Framework replaces the current Research Assessment Exercise. Fundamentally the Research Excellence Framework involves a shift to metrics. Views on the effectiveness of metrics for assessing research are mixed, so in this report we seek to explore empirically the question of whether metrics based on citation counts are strongly correlated with peer review assessments of research quality. We use data from RAE 2001, covering all departments and all universities in the UK. At a more disaggregated level the data used in this study includes: [i] the individual submissions made to RAE 2001 - a database of 203,743 research output records, one for each output submitted in RAE 2001; [ii] the citation counts for each of the submitted items when they are journal articles (141,789 of the original 203,743 items). We have interrogated the ISA Web of Science and produced citation counts for every article included in RAE 2001 where data is available. This gives us citation counts for 112,201 publications (55.1% of the original 203,743 submitted items); [iii] the actual RAE 2001 scores produced and published by HEFCE. We contrast these scores - which are based on peer review - with those that would have been produced had bibliometrics, based on citation counts, been used in RAE 2001. The findings of this analysis are: [i] citation counts are a reasonable proxy for peer assessment in some subjects, such as Biological Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Chemistry and Psychology; [ii] however, citation counts are a weak proxy for a large number of disciplines, including fields within Biomedical related subjects and Engineering-related subjects. This is despite the fact that these subjects have good coverage in the Web of Science, in terms of the outputs submitted to RAE 2001; [iii] as others have reported, the Web of Science offers only partial coverage in some subjects, and hence the use of bibliometrics becomes increasingly less valuable as we move from Biomedical, Physical Sciences and Engineering, to Socials Sciences, Literature and Arts and Humanities.
如何最好地评估研究绩效的问题显然是一个非常值得关注的问题。2007年12月,HEFCE发起了一项关于研究评估未来的全国咨询,建议用一个卓越研究框架取代目前的研究评估工作。从根本上说,卓越研究框架涉及到向指标的转变。关于评估研究的指标有效性的观点褒贬不一,因此在本报告中,我们试图从实证角度探讨基于引用计数的指标是否与同行评审对研究质量的评估密切相关的问题。我们使用2001年RAE的数据,涵盖了英国所有院系和所有大学。在更细分的层面上,本研究使用的数据包括:[i]提交给2001年研究评审的个人数据-一个包含203,743个研究产出记录的数据库,每个记录对应2001年研究评审提交的产出;[ii]每一项提交的期刊文章的引用计数(原始203,743项中的141,789项)。我们查询了ISA Web of Science,并对RAE 2001中包含的每一篇文章进行了引用计数。这为我们提供了112,201篇出版物的引用计数(占原始提交的203,743篇文章的55.1%);[iii]高等教育教育委员会编制和公布的二零零一年科研评审实际成绩。我们将这些基于同行评议的分数与那些在2001年RAE中使用基于引用计数的文献计量学方法得出的分数进行了对比。这一分析的结果是:[1]在某些学科,如生物科学、临床科学、化学和心理学,被引次数是同行评估的合理代表;[ii]然而,引文计数对大量学科来说是一个弱的代理,包括生物医学相关学科和工程相关学科的领域。尽管从提交给2001年科研评审委员会的产出来看,这些学科在科学网上有很好的覆盖;[iii]正如其他人所报道的那样,Web of Science只提供了某些学科的部分覆盖,因此,随着我们从生物医学、物理科学和工程转向社会科学、文学、艺术和人文科学,文献计量学的使用变得越来越没有价值。