اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدLike-for-like bibliometric substitutes for peer review: advantages and limits of indicators calculated from the ep index
66
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
The use of bibliometric indicators would simplify research assessments. The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a peer review assessment of UK universities, whose results can be taken as benchmarks for bibliometric indicators. In this study we use the REF results to investigate whether the ep index and a top percentile of most cited papers could substitute for peer review. The probability that a random universitys paper reaches a certain top percentile in the global distribution of papers is a power of the ep index, which can be calculated from the citation-based distribution of universitys papers in global top percentiles. Making use of the ep index in each university and research area, we calculated the ratios between the percentage of 4-star-rated outputs in REF and the percentages of papers in global top percentiles. Then, we fixed the assessment percentile so that the mean ratio between these two indicators across universities is 1.0. This method was applied to four units of assessment in REF: Chemistry, Economics & Econometrics joined to Business & Management Studies, and Physics. Some relevant deviations from the 1.0 ratio could be explained by the evaluation procedure in REF or by the characteristics of the research field; other deviations need specific studies by experts in the research area. The present results indicate that in many research areas the substitution of a top percentile indicator for peer review is possible. However, this substitution cannot be made straightforwardly; more research is needed to establish the conditions of the bibliometric assessment.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Academic leadership is essential for research innovation and impact. Until now, there has been no dedicated measure of leadership by bibliometrics. Popular bibliometric indices are mainly based on academic output, such as the journal impact factor an
d the number of citations. Here we develop an academic leadership index based on readily available bibliometric data that is sensitive to not only academic output but also research efficiency. Our leadership index was tested in two studies on peer-reviewed journal papers by extramurally-funded principal investigators in the field of life sciences from China and the USA, respectively. The leadership performance of these principal investigators was quantified and compared relative to university rank and other factors. As a validation measure, we show that the highest average leadership index was achieved by principal investigators at top national universities in both countries. More interestingly, our results also indicate that on an individual basis, strong leadership and high efficiency are not necessarily associated with those at top-tier universities nor with the most funding. This leadership index may become the basis of a comprehensive merit system, facilitating academic evaluation and resource management.
A semi-supervised model of peer review is introduced that is intended to overcome the bias and incompleteness of traditional peer review. Traditional approaches are reliant on human biases, while consensus decision-making is constrained by sparse inf
ormation. Here, the architecture for one potential improvement (a semi-supervised, human-assisted classifier) to the traditional approach will be introduced and evaluated. To evaluate the potential advantages of such a system, hypothetical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both approaches will be assessed. This will provide more specific indications of how automation would be beneficial in the manuscript evaluation process. In conclusion, the implications for such a system on measurements of scientific impact and improving the quality of open submission repositories will be discussed.
Percentiles have been established in bibliometrics as an important alternative to mean-based indicators for obtaining a normalized citation impact of publications. Percentiles have a number of advantages over standard bibliometric indicators used fre
quently: for example, their calculation is not based on the arithmetic mean which should not be used for skewed bibliometric data. This study describes the opportunities and limits and the advantages and disadvantages of using percentiles in bibliometrics. We also address problems in the calculation of percentiles and percentile rank classes for which there is not (yet) a satisfactory solution. It will be hard to compare the results of different percentile-based studies with each other unless it is clear that the studies were done with the same choices for percentile calculation and rank assignment.
Modern machine learning and computer science conferences are experiencing a surge in the number of submissions that challenges the quality of peer review as the number of competent reviewers is growing at a much slower rate. To curb this trend and re
duce the burden on reviewers, several conferences have started encouraging or even requiring authors to declare the previous submission history of their papers. Such initiatives have been met with skepticism among authors, who raise the concern about a potential bias in reviewers recommendations induced by this information. In this work, we investigate whether reviewers exhibit a bias caused by the knowledge that the submission under review was previously rejected at a similar venue, focusing on a population of novice reviewers who constitute a large fraction of the reviewer pool in leading machine learning and computer science conferences. We design and conduct a randomized controlled trial closely replicating the relevant components of the peer-review pipeline with $133$ reviewers (masters, junior PhD students, and recent graduates of top US universities) writing reviews for $19$ papers. The analysis reveals that reviewers indeed become negatively biased when they receive a signal about paper being a resubmission, giving almost 1 point lower overall score on a 10-point Likert item ($Delta = -0.78, 95% text{CI} = [-1.30, -0.24]$) than reviewers who do not receive such a signal. Looking at specific criteria scores (originality, quality, clarity and significance), we observe that novice reviewers tend to underrate quality the most.
Peer-review system has long been relied upon for bringing quality research to the notice of the scientific community and also preventing flawed research from entering into the literature. The need for the peer-review system has often been debated as
in numerous cases it has failed in its task and in most of these cases editors and the reviewers were thought to be responsible for not being able to correctly judge the quality of the work. This raises a question Can the peer-review system be improved? Since editors and reviewers are the most important pillars of a reviewing system, we in this work, attempt to address a related question - given the editing/reviewing history of the editors or re- viewers can we identify the under-performing ones?, with citations received by the edited/reviewed papers being used as proxy for quantifying performance. We term such review- ers and editors as anomalous and we believe identifying and removing them shall improve the performance of the peer- review system. Using a massive dataset of Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP) consisting of 29k papers submitted between 1997 and 2015 with 95 editors and 4035 reviewers and their review history, we identify several factors which point to anomalous behavior of referees and editors. In fact the anomalous editors and reviewers account for 26.8% and 14.5% of the total editors and reviewers respectively and for most of these anomalous reviewers the performance degrades alarmingly over time.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
