超越宣言:衡量标准、排名和负责任的评估

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
{"title":"超越宣言:衡量标准、排名和负责任的评估","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Responsible assessment promotes expert judgment and opposes sole reliance on research metrics when assessing research excellence. While many institutions and national research panels declare commitment to responsible assessment practices, we ask: have these declarations affected the outcomes of research evaluation? Using data from the UK's 2021 national research quality exercise and focusing on the business and management discipline, we show that the strong association between journal rankings and expert evaluations has not changed, despite institutional endorsements of DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment). Additionally, we find that this correlation is strongest for the most prestigious journals. The implications of these findings are profound: they enhance understanding of the use of metrics in research evaluations post-DORA and highlight potential constraints in the deployment of responsible assessment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001422/pdfft?md5=f7b743d95a907a2e7a14acc260bd5e83&pid=1-s2.0-S0048733324001422-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond declarations: Metrics, rankings and responsible assessment\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Responsible assessment promotes expert judgment and opposes sole reliance on research metrics when assessing research excellence. While many institutions and national research panels declare commitment to responsible assessment practices, we ask: have these declarations affected the outcomes of research evaluation? Using data from the UK's 2021 national research quality exercise and focusing on the business and management discipline, we show that the strong association between journal rankings and expert evaluations has not changed, despite institutional endorsements of DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment). Additionally, we find that this correlation is strongest for the most prestigious journals. The implications of these findings are profound: they enhance understanding of the use of metrics in research evaluations post-DORA and highlight potential constraints in the deployment of responsible assessment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001422/pdfft?md5=f7b743d95a907a2e7a14acc260bd5e83&pid=1-s2.0-S0048733324001422-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001422\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001422","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

负责任的评估提倡专家判断,反对在评估卓越研究时只依赖研究指标。虽然许多机构和国家研究小组都宣布致力于负责任的评估实践,但我们要问:这些声明是否影响了研究评估的结果?我们利用英国 2021 年国家研究质量调查的数据,以商业和管理学科为重点,发现尽管机构认可 DORA(研究评估宣言),但期刊排名与专家评价之间的紧密联系并没有改变。此外,我们还发现,这种相关性在最负盛名的期刊中最强。这些发现具有深远的意义:它们加深了人们对 DORA 后研究评估中指标使用的理解,并强调了负责任评估部署中的潜在限制因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond declarations: Metrics, rankings and responsible assessment

Responsible assessment promotes expert judgment and opposes sole reliance on research metrics when assessing research excellence. While many institutions and national research panels declare commitment to responsible assessment practices, we ask: have these declarations affected the outcomes of research evaluation? Using data from the UK's 2021 national research quality exercise and focusing on the business and management discipline, we show that the strong association between journal rankings and expert evaluations has not changed, despite institutional endorsements of DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment). Additionally, we find that this correlation is strongest for the most prestigious journals. The implications of these findings are profound: they enhance understanding of the use of metrics in research evaluations post-DORA and highlight potential constraints in the deployment of responsible assessment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信