Dataset Information

Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment exercise.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

There is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs) make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies.

Design and methodology

To examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom's recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF's results and HEFCE's funding allocations.

Findings

A world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles.

Practical implications

The findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The findings may also influence future REF submission strategies in HEIs and ascertain that the impact rating of the journals is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of research in every discipline, and this may have a significant influence on the future of scholarly communications in general.

Originality

According to the author's knowledge, this is the first time an investigation has estimated the monetary value of a good research output.

SUBMITTER: Koya K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5507403 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment exercise.

Koya Kushwanth K Chowdhury Gobinda G

PloS one 20170711 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>There is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but w ...[more]

PMID: 28700651

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe health of migrants has become an important issue in global health and foreign policy. Assessing the current status of research activity and identifying gaps in global migration health (GMH) is an important step in mapping the evidence-base and on advocating health needs of migrants and mobile populations. The aim of this study was to analyze globally published peer-reviewed literature in GMH.MethodsA bibliometric analysis methodology was used. The Scopus database was used to retrieve documents in peer-reviewed journals in GMH for the study period from 2000 to 2016. A group of experts in GMH developed the needed keywords and validated the final search strategy.ResultsThe number of retrieved documents was 21,457. Approximately one third (6878; 32.1%) of the retrieved documents were published in the last three years of the study period. In total, 5451 (25.4%) documents were about refugees and asylum seekers, while 1328 (6.2%) were about migrant workers, 440 (2.1%) were about international students, 679 (3.2%) were about victims of human trafficking/smuggling, 26 (0.1%) were about patients' mobility across international borders, and the remaining documents were about unspecified categories of migrants. The majority of the retrieved documents (10,086; 47.0%) were in psychosocial and mental health domain, while 2945 (13.7%) documents were in infectious diseases, 6819 (31.8%) documents were in health policy and systems, 2759 (12.8%) documents were in maternal and reproductive health, and 1918 (8.9%) were in non-communicable diseases. The contribution of authors and institutions in Asian countries, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, and Eastern European countries was low. Literature in GMH represents the perspectives of high-income migrant destination countries.ConclusionOur heat map of research output shows that despite the ever-growing prominence of human mobility across the globe, and Sustainable Development Goals of leaving no one behind, research output on migrants' health is not consistent with the global migration pattern. A stronger evidence base is needed to enable authorities to make evidence-informed decisions on migration health policy and practice. Research collaboration and networks should be encouraged to prioritize research in GMH.

Project description:BackgroundQuantitative data are lacking on published malaria research. The purpose of the study is to characterize trends in malaria-related literature from 1990 to 2009 in 11 Asian-Pacific countries that are committed to malaria elimination as a national goal.MethodsA systematic search was conducted for articles published from January 1990 to December 2009 in PubMed/MEDLINE using terms for malaria and 11 target countries (Bhutan, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vanuatu). The references were collated and categorized according to subject, Plasmodium species, and whether they contained original or derivative data.Results2,700 articles published between 1990 and 2009 related to malaria in the target countries. The annual output of malaria-related papers increased linearly whereas the overall biomedical output from these countries grew exponentially. The percentage of malaria-related publications was nearly 3% (111/3741) of all biomedical publications in 1992 and decreased to less than 1% (118/12171; p < 0.001) in 2009. Thailand had the highest absolute output of malaria-related papers (n = 1211), followed by China (n = 609) and Indonesia (n = 346). Solomon Islands and Vanuatu had lower absolute numbers of publications, but both countries had the highest number of publications per capita (1.3 and 2.5 papers/1,000 population). The largest percentage of papers concerned the epidemiology and control of malaria (53%) followed by studies of drugs and drug resistance (47%). There was an increase in the proportion of articles relating to epidemiology, entomology, biology, molecular biology, pathophysiology and diagnostics from the first to the second decade, whereas the percentage of papers on drugs, clinical aspects of malaria, immunology, and social sciences decreased.ConclusionsThe proportion of malaria-related publications out of the overall biomedical output from the 11 target Asian-Pacific countries is decreasing. The discovery and evaluation of new, safe and effective drugs and vaccines is paramount. In addition the elimination of malaria will require operational research to implement and scale up interventions.

Project description:BackgroundThere are increasing calls for patient involvement in sharing health research results, but no evidence-based recommendations to guide such involvement. Our objectives were to: (1) conduct a systematic review of the evidence on patient involvement in results sharing, (2) propose evidence-based recommendations to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of such involvement and (3) conduct this project with patient authors.MethodsTo avoid research waste, we verified that no systematic reviews were registered or published on this topic. We co-created, with patients, a PRISMA-P-compliant protocol. We included peer-reviewed publications reporting the effects of patient involvement in preparing peer-reviewed publications or results summaries from health research studies. We searched (9/10/2017) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and secondary information sources (until 11/06/2018). We assessed the risk of bias in eligible publications and extracted data using standardized processes. To evaluate patient involvement in this project, we co-created a Patient Authorship Experience Tool.ResultsAll nine eligible publications reported on patient involvement in preparing publications; none on preparing results summaries. Evidence quality was moderate. A qualitative synthesis of evidence indicated the benefits of patient involvement may outweigh the risks. We have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks when involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications. The recommendations focus on practical actions patient and non-patient authors can take before (10 recommendations), during (7 recommendations) and after (4 recommendations) manuscript development. Using the Patient Authorship Experience Tool, both patient and non-patient authors rated their experience highly.ConclusionsBased on a systematic review, we have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications.

Dataset Information

Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment exercise.

Purpose

Design and methodology

Findings

Practical implications

Originality

Publications

Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment exercise.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets