Abstract
The use of quantitative performance measures to assess the quality of university research is being introduced in Australia and the UK. This paper presents the case for maintaining a balanced approach. It argues that 'metrics' have their place, and can make the process more efficient and cost-effective, but that peer review must be retained as a central element in any research assessment exercise. The role of metrics is as 'a trigger to the recognition of anomalies', rather than as a straight replacement for peer review.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 565-574 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | Science and Public Policy |
Volume | 34 |
Issue number | 8 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Oct 2007 |