Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: A comparative case study with policy implications
Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: A comparative case study with policy implications
复制标题
通过文献计量分析和直接同行评审进行机构研究排名：具有政策影响的比较案例研究
作者：
P. Thomas;D. Watkins
近年来，人们对英国研究质量比较评估的兴趣大大增加，相当多的资源用于在子学科水平上对学术机构的产出进行排名，而更大的资源的配置取决于这一过程的结果。首选的方法是传统的同行评审，由学者组成的专家组负责评估“他们”领域所有研究活动的相对价值。最近改进的期刊排名技术（学科贡献评分）的机构评价扩展提供了在一定时间范围内“自动”评价的可能性，这大大低于使用直接基于被审查学术工作语料库内引用计数的方法所需的可能性。本文测试的可行性，该技术在子领域的商业和管理研究的研究，产生的排名是高度相关的那些更复杂和昂贵的直接同行评议的方法。更一般地说，分析也提供了一个难得的机会，直接比较同行评议的文献计量分析在整个子领域的学术活动在非实验设置的等效性。
Recent years have seen enormously increased interest in the comparative evaluation of research quality in the UK, with considerable resources devoted to ranking the output of academic institutions relative to one another at the sub-discipline level, and the disposition of even greater resources dependent on the outcome of this process. The preferred methodology has been that of traditional peer review, with expert groups of academics tasked to assess the relative worth of all research activity in ‘their’ field. Extension toinstitutional evaluation of a recently refined technique ofjournal ranking (Discipline Contribution Scoring) holds out the possibility of ‘automatic’ evaluation within a time-frame considerably less than would be required using methods based directly on citation counts within the corpus of academic work under review. This paper tests the feasibility of the technique in the sub-field of Business and Management Studies Research, producing rankings which are highly correlated with those generated by the much more complex and expensive direct peer review approach. More generally, the analysis also gives a rare opportunity directly to compare the equivalence of peer review bibliometric analysis over a whole sub-field of academic activity in a non-experimental setting.