The Influence of Peer Review on the Research Assessment Exercise

Bence, Valerie; Oppenheim, Charles

doi:10.1177/0165551504045854

Cited by 54 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several countries (e.g., UK, Australia and Italy) also employ expert post-publication peer judgments of (normally) peer reviewed research in order to allocate public funds (ARC, 2015;Franceschet;Costantini, 2011;REF, 2012). Although this double peer review approach has been criticised on the basis that the first should be sufficient (Bence;Oppenheim, 2004), post-publication reviews can provide critical analyses from a wider spectrum of experts and help to standardise between journals (e.g., Crotty, 2012; Hunter, 2012; Teixeira-Da-Silva, 2013).…”

Section: Faculty Of 1000 Web Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics

Thelwall¹,

Kousha²

2015

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This literature review assesses indicators derived from social media sources, including both general and academic sites. Such indicators have been termed altmetrics, influmetrics, social media metrics, or a type of webometric, and have recently been commercialised by a number of companies and employed by some publishers and university administrators. The social media metrics analysed here derive mainly from Twitter, Facebook, Google+, F1000, Mendeley, ResearchGate, and Academia. edu. They have the apparent potential to deliver fast, free indicators of the wider societal impact of research, or of different types of academic impacts, complementing academic impact indicators from traditional citation indexes. Although it is unwise to employ them in formal evaluations with stakeholders, due to their susceptibility to gaming and lack of real evidence that they reflect wider research impacts, they are useful for formative evaluations and to investigate science itself. Mendeley reader counts are particularly promising. KeywordsAltmetrics; Alternative metrics; Alternative indicators; Citation analysis; Web indicators; Webometrics; Scientometrics; Social media metrics; Twitter; Mendeley. ResumenEsta revisión bibliográfica evalúa indicadores derivados de medios sociales, tanto generales como académicos. Tales indicadores han sido llamados, influmétricos, altmétricos, métricas de medios sociales, o tipo de webmetría. Recientemente los han comercializado algunas empresas y los emplean algunos editores y administradores universitarios. Las métricas de medios sociales analizados aquí se derivan principalmente de Twitter, Facebook, Google+, F1000, Mendeley, ResearchGate y Academia.edu. Tienen el aparente potencial de ofrecer indicadores rápidos y gratuitos del impacto social de la investigación, o de impactos académicos de un tipo diferente, que complementan los indicadores obtenidos de los tradicionales índices de citas. Aunque no es prudente emplearlos en las evaluaciones formales de personas e instituciones, debido a que pueden ser falseados fácilmente y a la falta de evidencia real de que reflejen fielmente el impacto de la investigación en Manuscript

show abstract

Section: Faculty Of 1000 Web Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics

Thelwall¹,

Kousha²

2015

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Stigler et alii (1995) put forward that, in steering disciplines according to his tastes, in suppressing or pushing lines of research, editors directly influence the content of their journals. According to Laband (1990) and Bence and Oppenheim (2004), the editorial process contributes to the quality of the journal while referees and editors assist the authors in the production of publishable papers. Donovan (1998) points out that good refereeing and editing raises the perceived quality and increases reader appeal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality

Besancenot

Huynh²,

Faria

2012

Theory Decis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the search for the best papers by the editors of an academic journal. Editors' search is sequential. At each period, each editor receives one submission from a researcher and has to decide if she accepts or rejects the paper. The editorial board is heterogeneous, some editors being more demanding than others. On the academic side, researchers choose the quality level of their papers in order to maximize their utility function taking as given the composition of the editorial board. We show that three equilibria may occur. When the number of the less demanding editors is high, or if the editors exhibit great differences in their demand for quality, the journal will attract fewer submissions, publish a small number of papers and these papers will be of low quality. When the editorial board is composed by a homogeneous set of very demanding editors, the journal will publish a high number of high quality papers. For some intermediate structure of the board, a situation of multiple equilibria allows a hybrid equilibrium to exist in which the journal receives both good and bad papers. The long run and welfare implications of these equilibria are analyzed.

show abstract

“…Ellis, 2007); others note the importance of quality peer-reviewed publications for academic career development and funding applications (e.g. Bence & Oppenheim, 2004); whilst others have identified how contemporary communication platforms, such as Twitter, expose researchers to fast and sometimes critical responses from their peers and wider groups (e.g. Mandavilli, 2011).…”

Section: Stage Four: Publication and Beyondmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revise, resubmit and reveal? An autoethnographer’s story of facing the challenges of revealing the self through publication

Dashper

2015

Current Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a story of writing, revising and publishing an autoethnography of sporting injury. Using extracts from peer review comments and personal reflections both on these reviews and on the process more broadly, I show that although autoethnography can be a very challenging, even troubling, experience for the author, it can also be rewarding and empowering when editors and reviewers offer supportive and constructive comments and suggestions. I argue that greater consideration needs to be given to the aftermath of publication of autoethnographic accounts and call for wider debate about the ethics of asking authors to reveal more about their personal lives and weaknesses in the pursuit of academic goals. The article offers would-be autoethnographers one account of the writing, revising and publishing process in order to explore a number of relevant issues that arise when an author chooses an autoethnographic approach for conducting and presenting research.

show abstract

The Influence of Peer Review on the Research Assessment Exercise

Abstract: Abstract.

Cited by 54 publications

References 52 publications

Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics

Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics

Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality

Revise, resubmit and reveal? An autoethnographer’s story of facing the challenges of revealing the self through publication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About