The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.

Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to co...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Gemma Elizabeth Derrick, Abby Haynes, Simon Chapman, Wayne D Hall
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/04ac488229a94a2dbd0ebade5a3e43e3
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:04ac488229a94a2dbd0ebade5a3e43e3
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:04ac488229a94a2dbd0ebade5a3e43e32021-11-18T06:56:08ZThe association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0018521https://doaj.org/article/04ac488229a94a2dbd0ebade5a3e43e32011-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21494691/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field closely to determine what measures of research influence are valued highly by members of that research community. This will aid the development of comprehensive and relevant frameworks with which to fairly and transparently distribute research funds or approve promotion applications.Gemma Elizabeth DerrickAbby HaynesSimon ChapmanWayne D HallPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 6, Iss 4, p e18521 (2011)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Gemma Elizabeth Derrick Abby Haynes Simon Chapman Wayne D Hall The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.
description	Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field closely to determine what measures of research influence are valued highly by members of that research community. This will aid the development of comprehensive and relevant frameworks with which to fairly and transparently distribute research funds or approve promotion applications.
format	article
author	Gemma Elizabeth Derrick Abby Haynes Simon Chapman Wayne D Hall
author_facet	Gemma Elizabeth Derrick Abby Haynes Simon Chapman Wayne D Hall
author_sort	Gemma Elizabeth Derrick
title	The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.
title_short	The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.
title_full	The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.
title_fullStr	The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.
title_full_unstemmed	The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.
title_sort	association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of australian researchers in six fields of public health.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2011
url	https://doaj.org/article/04ac488229a94a2dbd0ebade5a3e43e3
work_keys_str_mv	AT gemmaelizabethderrick theassociationbetweenfourcitationmetricsandpeerrankingsofresearchinfluenceofaustralianresearchersinsixfieldsofpublichealth AT abbyhaynes theassociationbetweenfourcitationmetricsandpeerrankingsofresearchinfluenceofaustralianresearchersinsixfieldsofpublichealth AT simonchapman theassociationbetweenfourcitationmetricsandpeerrankingsofresearchinfluenceofaustralianresearchersinsixfieldsofpublichealth AT waynedhall theassociationbetweenfourcitationmetricsandpeerrankingsofresearchinfluenceofaustralianresearchersinsixfieldsofpublichealth AT gemmaelizabethderrick associationbetweenfourcitationmetricsandpeerrankingsofresearchinfluenceofaustralianresearchersinsixfieldsofpublichealth AT abbyhaynes associationbetweenfourcitationmetricsandpeerrankingsofresearchinfluenceofaustralianresearchersinsixfieldsofpublichealth AT simonchapman associationbetweenfourcitationmetricsandpeerrankingsofresearchinfluenceofaustralianresearchersinsixfieldsofpublichealth AT waynedhall associationbetweenfourcitationmetricsandpeerrankingsofresearchinfluenceofaustralianresearchersinsixfieldsofpublichealth
_version_	1718424146804736000

The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.

Ejemplares similares