Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The paper discusses the strengths and limitations of ‘metrics’ and peer review in large-scale evaluations of scholarly research performance. A real challenge is to combine the two methodologies in such a way that the strength of the first compensates for the limitations of the second, and vice versa. It underlines the need to systematically take into account the unintended effects of the use of metrics. It proposes a set of general criteria for the proper use of bibliometric indicators within peer-review processes, and applies these to a particular case: the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).
Henk F. Moed (Mon,) studied this question.