Balancing quantitative metrics and peer review enhances research assessment in universities.
The use of quantitative performance measures to assess the quality of university research is being introduced in Australia and the UK. This paper presents the case for maintaining a balanced approach. It argues that ‘metrics’ have their place, and can make the process more efficient and cost-effective, but that peer review must be retained as a central element in any research assessment exercise. The role of metrics is as ‘a trigger to the recognition of anomalies’, rather than as a straight replacement for peer review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Linda Butler (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: