References
- 1 Donald T. Campbell, “Assessing the impact of planned social change”, Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), (1979), 67–90; DOI: 10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X (accessed 16 January 2019).
-
2
INORMS Research Evaluation
Working Group (2018):
https://inorms.net/activities/research-evaluation-working-group/ (accessed 16 January 2019). -
3
IREG Observatory,
IREG Inventory of International University Rankings
2014–17. Brussels:
Perspektywy Education Foundation,
(2018):
http://ireg-observatory.org/en/pdfy/IREG-Inventory-of-International%20University%20Rankings.pdf (accessed 18 January 2019). -
4
Andrejs
Rauhvargers, Global University
Rankings and Their Impact – Report II (2013):
https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/global%20university%20rankings%20and%20their%20impact%20-%20report%20ii.pdf (accessed 19 January 2019). -
5
Erik
Arnold et al., Review of the
Research Excellence Framework (October
2018):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/768162/research-excellence-framework-review-evidence-report.pdf (accessed 18 January 2019). - 6 Benedetto Lepori et al., “Comparing the evolution of national research policies: what patterns of change?”, Science and Public Policy, 34 (July 2007), 372–388, 10.3152/030234207X234578 (accessed 16 January 2019).
-
7
Ulf
Sandström and
Peter
Van den Besselaar,
“Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national
research systems”, Journal of
Informetrics, 12(1),
(2018), 365–384, 10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007 (accessed 16 January
2019); ANVUR (2018):
http://www.anvur.it/en/activities/vqr/ (accessed 16 January 2019). - 8 Rauhvargers, Global University Rankings ref. 4.
-
9
Jenny
Rohn,
Stephen
Curry and
Andrew
Steele, “UK research
funding slumps below 0.5% GDP”, The
Guardian, March
13, 2015:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/mar/13/science-vital-uk-spending-research-gdp (accessed 16 January 2019). -
10
[Anonymous academic],
“I struggle when hiring academics – because the
candidates are too good”, The
Guardian, June
1, 2018:
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2018/jun/01/academics-candidates-outstanding-application-recruitment (accessed 16 January 2019). -
11
Christopher
Jackson, A
researcher’s perspective on the recent event “The turning tide:
A new culture of responsible metrics for research”,
(HEFCE blog), 19
March
2018:
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180416090255/http://blog.hefce.ac.uk/2018/03/19/a-researchers-perspective-on-responsible-metrics/ (accessed 21 January 2019). -
12
See for example: Russia Global
Education Program:
https://educationglobal.ru/en/info/ (accessed 21 January 2019). -
13
See for example:
Karin
Erlander and
Sood
Ratul, “University of
Nottingham Rating Affirmed At ‘A+’ On Solid Performance; Outlook
Stable”, 2017:
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/fabs/finance/documents/spcr-2017.pdf (accessed 24 January 2019). -
14
[Anon.],
Don’t pay prizes for published science,
Nature, 547 (7662),
(2017):
https://www.nature.com/news/don-t-pay-prizes-for-published-science-1.22275 (accessed 18 January 2019). - 15 Quirin Schiermeier, “China backs bold plan to tear down journal paywalls”, Nature New, December 5, 2018, 10.1038/d41586-018-07659-5 (accessed 18 January 2019).
-
16
Meta.com
2016. Meta for publisher:
http://cdn.meta.com/assets/downloads/Pub_Bibliometric.pdf (accessed 18 January 2019). -
17
Chris
Parr, Imperial College
professor Stefan Grimm “was given grant income
target”, Times Higher Education,
December
3, 2014:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/imperial-college-professor-stefan-grimm-was-given-grant-income-target/2017369.article (accessed 18 January 2019). -
18
Rachael
Pells, Lecturer’s
suicide a “wake-up call” on overworking in
academia, Times Higher Education,
June
4, 2018:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/lecturers-suicide-wake-call-overworking-academia (accessed 18 January 2019). -
19
Holly
Else, Academics “face
higher mental health risk” than other professions,
Times Higher Education, August
22, 2017:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/academics-face-higher-mental-health-risk-than-other-professions (accessed 18 January 2019). -
20
Declaration in Research
Assessment (DORA). [n.d.]:
https://sfdora.org/ (accessed 18 January 2019). - 21 Diana Hicks et al., “The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics”, Nature 520: 429–31, (2015), 10.1038/520429a (accessed 18 January 2019).
-
22
Wilsdon,
James, et al., The
Metric Tide, (2015):
https://responsiblemetrics.org/the-metric-tide/ (accessed 18 January 2019). -
23
Elizabeth
Gadd, “Who will
welcome Wellcome? Results of the 2018 responsible metrics state-of-the-art
survey”, The Bibliomagician (blog),
November
8, 2018:
https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/2018/11/08/who-will-welcome-wellcome-results-of-the-2018-responsible-metrics-state-of-the-art-survey/ (accessed 18 January 2019). -
24
The Wellcome Trust.
2018. Open Access Policy 2020:
https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wellcome-open-access-policy-2020.pdf (accessed 15 January 2019). -
25
cOAlition S,
Plan S Implementation and feedback, 2018:
https://www.coalition-s.org/feedback/ (accessed 18 January 2019). -
26
Jonathan
P.
Tennant et al., “A
Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer
Review”, F1000Research,
(2017): 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 (accessed 18 January 2019);
Tony
Ross-Hellauer, “What Is Open Peer
Review? A Systematic Review [Version 2; Referees: 4 Approved]”.
F1000Research (May 2017): 10.12688/f1000research.11369.1 (accessed 18 January 2019); Claire
Le Goues et al., “Effectiveness of Anonymization in Double-Blind
Review.” Communications of the ACM 61 (6), June 2017:
30–33,
https://doi.org/10.1145/3208157 (accessed 18 January 2019). -
27
Alan
Dix. Metrics are rubbish
but…
Slides presented at ARMA Conference 2017,
June 8, 2017 :https://www.slideshare.net/alanjohndix/metrics-are-rubbish-but (accessed 18 January 2019). - 28 Salil Gunashekar, Steven Wooding and Susan Guthrie, “How do NIHR peer review panels use bibliometric information to support their decisions?” Scientometrics 112 (3), (2017): 1813–35, 10.1007/s11192-017-2417-8 (accessed 18 January 2019).
-
29
See for example:
Henk F.
Moed, “A Critical
Comparative Analysis of Five World University
Rankings,”
Scientometrics
110 (2), (2017):
967–90, 10.1007/S11192-016-2212-Y (accessed 18 January 2019); Jill Johnes,
“University Rankings: What Do They Really Show?” Scientometrics
Online First, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2666-1 ; CWTS, CWTS Leiden Rankings, Ten Principles for the responsible use of rankings, 2017:http://www.leidenranking.com/information/responsibleuse (accessed 18 January 2019). -
30
Laura
Bridgestock, “How do
Universities Use Rankings?”
Top Universities, November
7, 2014:
https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/university-news/how-do-universities-use-rankings (accessed 18 January 2019). -
31
Dimensions:
https://dimensions.ai (accessed 18 January 2019). -
32
1findr:
https://1findr.1science.com/home/ (accessed 18 January 2019). -
33
Wizdom:
https://wizdom.ai/ (accessed 15 January 2019). - 34 Lorna Wildgaard, Jesper W Schneider and Birger Larsen, “A Review of the Characteristics of 108 Author-Level Bibliometric Indicators”, Scientometrics 101 (1), (2014), 125–158, 10.1007/s11192-014-1423-3 (accessed 21 January 2019).
- 35 Roberto Todeschini and Alberto Baccini, Handbook of Bibliometric Indicators: Quantitative Tools for Studying and Evaluating Research, John Wiley & Sons, 2016, 10.1002/9783527681969 (accessed 18 January 2019).
-
36
Arlette
Jappe,
David
Pithan and
Thomas
Heinze, “Does
bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A
sociological study of reputational control,
1972–2016,”
Plos One
13 (6), (2018):
e0199031 , 10.1371/journal.pone.0199031 (accessed 18 January 2019). -
37
Caitlin
J.
Bakker and
Jenny
McBurney, “Big
Splashes & Ripple Effects: Research Impact Services Across University
Libraries,”
2017:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/188632 (accessed 18 January 2019). - 38 Sabrina Petersohn, “Professional competencies and jurisdictional claims in evaluative bibliometrics: The educational mandate of academic librarians,” Education for Information, 32, (2016): 165–193, 10.3233/EFI-150972 (accessed 18 January 2019).
- 39 cOAlition S, Plan S, ref.25.
-
40
Elizabeth
Gadd and
Ian
Rowlands, “How can
bibliometric and altmetric suppliers improve? Messages from the end-user
community,”
Insights, 31, 38,
(2018):
https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.437/ (accessed 18 January 2019). - 41 Andrew Cox, Elizabeth Gadd, Sabrina Petersohn and Laura Sbaffi, “Competencies for Bibliometrics,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Online First, 2017, 10.1177/0961000617728111 (accessed 18 January 2019).
-
42
Elizabeth
Gadd, The Changing world of
research evaluation. Slides presented at the
Jisc/CNI Leaders Conference, Oxford,
July 2, 2018 :https://figshare.com/articles/The_changing_world_of_research_evaluation/6754184 (accessed 18 January 2019). - 43 Pells, Lecturer’s suicide a “wake-up call”, ref. 18.