Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment
EDITORIAL © 2013 Eisen et al. Funding organisations, scientists, and the general public need robust and reliable ways to evaluate the output of scientific research. In this issue of PLOS Biology, Adam Eyre-Walker and Nina Stoletzki analyse the subjective assessment and citations of more than...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/81467 |
| _version_ | 1848764370609242112 |
|---|---|
| author | Eisen, J.A. MacCallum, C.J. Neylon, Cameron |
| author_facet | Eisen, J.A. MacCallum, C.J. Neylon, Cameron |
| author_sort | Eisen, J.A. |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | EDITORIAL
© 2013 Eisen et al.
Funding organisations, scientists, and the general public need robust and reliable ways to evaluate the output of scientific research. In this issue of PLOS Biology, Adam Eyre-Walker and Nina Stoletzki analyse the subjective assessment and citations of more than 6,000 published papers [1]. They show that expert assessors are biased by the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the paper has been published and cannot consistently and independently judge the “merit” of a paper or predict its future impact, as measured by citations. They also show that citations themselves are not a reliable way to assess merit as they are inherently highly stochastic. In a final twist, the authors argue that the IF is probably the least-bad metric amongst the small set that they analyse, concluding that it is the best surrogate of the merit of individual papers currently available. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:18:17Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-81467 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:18:17Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publisher | PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-814672020-11-09T00:57:42Z Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment Eisen, J.A. MacCallum, C.J. Neylon, Cameron Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Biology Life Sciences & Biomedicine - Other Topics EDITORIAL © 2013 Eisen et al. Funding organisations, scientists, and the general public need robust and reliable ways to evaluate the output of scientific research. In this issue of PLOS Biology, Adam Eyre-Walker and Nina Stoletzki analyse the subjective assessment and citations of more than 6,000 published papers [1]. They show that expert assessors are biased by the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the paper has been published and cannot consistently and independently judge the “merit” of a paper or predict its future impact, as measured by citations. They also show that citations themselves are not a reliable way to assess merit as they are inherently highly stochastic. In a final twist, the authors argue that the IF is probably the least-bad metric amongst the small set that they analyse, concluding that it is the best surrogate of the merit of individual papers currently available. 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/81467 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001677 English http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE fulltext |
| spellingShingle | Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Biology Life Sciences & Biomedicine - Other Topics Eisen, J.A. MacCallum, C.J. Neylon, Cameron Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment |
| title | Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment |
| title_full | Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment |
| title_fullStr | Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment |
| title_full_unstemmed | Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment |
| title_short | Expert Failure: Re-evaluating Research Assessment |
| title_sort | expert failure: re-evaluating research assessment |
| topic | Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Biology Life Sciences & Biomedicine - Other Topics |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/81467 |