Metrics vs peer review: Why metrics can (and should?) be applied in the Social Sciences
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like103 views
The document discusses the application of metrics in the social sciences, emphasizing the rise of audit culture and the potential dangers of peer review, such as biases and inconsistencies in academic evaluation. It advocates for the integration of citation metrics alongside peer review to improve assessment accuracy while addressing the disparities between disciplines. Finally, it suggests exploring alternative data sources and metrics that offer a more inclusive assessment of academic contributions in the social sciences and humanities.
![What is the danger
of peer review? (2)
More generally, peer review might lead to what I have called
“promise over proof”
Harzing, A.W.; Mijnhardt, W. (2015) Proof over promise: Towards a more
inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business,
Scientometrics, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 727-749
Assessment of the quality of a publication might be (subconsciously)
influenced by the “promise” of:
the journal in which it is published,
the reputation of the author's affiliation,
the sub-discipline (theoretical/modeling vs. applied, hard vs. soft),
(or even) the gender and ethnicity of the author
Promise vs. proof: 4 vs. 1000?
[Promise] Publication in a “triple-A” or “4* journal" initially means that
3-4 academics thought your paper was a worthwhile contribution to the
field. But what if this paper is hardly ever cited?
[Proof] Publication in a “C-journal” or “1* journal” with 1,000+ citations
means that 1,000 academics thought your paper was a worthwhile
contribution to the field
5](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2017kentcitationmetricsvspeerreview-200101124158/85/Metrics-vs-peer-review-Why-metrics-can-and-should-be-applied-in-the-Social-Sciences-5-320.jpg)
Metrics vs peer review: Why metrics can (and should?) be applied in the Social Sciences
- 1. Why metrics can (and should?) be applied in the Social Sciences Anne-Wil Harzing, Middlesex University, London www.harzing.com @AWHarzing
- 2. Quick Intro: Anne-Wil Harzing My name?...., Yes Anne-Wil is one name and not part of my family name Started at Middlesex in July 2014 previously University of Melbourne (PhD director 2004-2009, Associate Dean RHD, 2009- 2010, Associate Dean Research, 2010-2013) 1991-2001: Bradford (UK), Maastricht, Tilburg & Heerlen (Netherlands) Active researcher & research mentor 81 international journal articles since 1995 (160+ publications in total) >12,500 Google Scholar citations, h-index 51, ISI citations: >4,700, top 1% most cited world- wide in Economics & Business Active blog on all things academia, incl. Academia Behind the Scenes and Academic Etiquette and Publish or Perish tips, http://www.harzing.com/blog/.toc Service to the academic community Editorial board membership of a dozen journals Personal website online since 1999, 1000-1500 visitors/day, many free resources Journal Quality List since 2000, 59th edition Publish or Perish since 2006, version 5 launched late October 2016 2
- 3. Metrics vs. peer review: an increasing audit culture Increasing “audit culture” in academia, where universities, departments and individuals are constantly monitored and ranked National research assessment exercises, such as the ERA (Australia) and the REF (UK), are becoming increasingly important Publications in these national exercises are normally assessed by peer review for Social Sciences and Humanities Citations metrics are now used in the Life Sciences, Sciences and Engineering as additional input for decision- making The argument for not using citation metrics in SSH is that coverage for these disciplines is deemed insufficient in WoS and Scopus 3
- 4. What is the danger of peer review? (1) Peer review might lead to harsher verdicts than bibliometric evidence especially for disciplines that do not have unified paradigms, such as the Social Sciences and Humanities In Australia (ERA 2010) the average rating for the Social Sciences was only about 60% of that of the Sciences and Life Sciences This is despite the fact that on a citations per paper basis Australia’s worldwide rank is similar in all disciplines The low ERA-ranking led to widespread popular commentary that government funding for the Social Sciences should be reduced or removed altogether Similarly negative assessment of the credibility of SSH can be found in the UK (and no doubt in many other countries) 4
- 5. What is the danger of peer review? (2) More generally, peer review might lead to what I have called “promise over proof” Harzing, A.W.; Mijnhardt, W. (2015) Proof over promise: Towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business, Scientometrics, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 727-749 Assessment of the quality of a publication might be (subconsciously) influenced by the “promise” of: the journal in which it is published, the reputation of the author's affiliation, the sub-discipline (theoretical/modeling vs. applied, hard vs. soft), (or even) the gender and ethnicity of the author Promise vs. proof: 4 vs. 1000? [Promise] Publication in a “triple-A” or “4* journal" initially means that 3-4 academics thought your paper was a worthwhile contribution to the field. But what if this paper is hardly ever cited? [Proof] Publication in a “C-journal” or “1* journal” with 1,000+ citations means that 1,000 academics thought your paper was a worthwhile contribution to the field 5
- 6. What can we do? Be critical about the increasing audit culture But: be realistic, we are unlikely to see a reversal of this trend. Hence in order to “emancipate” the Social Sciences and Humanities, an inclusion of citation metrics might help Raise awareness about Alternative data sources for citation analysis that are more inclusive (e.g. including books, local and regional journals, reports, working papers) Difficulty of comparing metrics across disciplines because of different publication and citation practices (Life) Science academics in particular write more (and shorter) papers with more authors; 10-15 authors not unusual, some >1000 authors Investigate alternative data sources and metrics Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, or even Scopus instead of WoS/ISI hIa (Individual annualised h-index), i.e. h-index corrected for career length and number of co-authors measures the average number of single-author equivalent impactful publications an academic publishes a year (usually well below 1.0) 6
- 7. Investigate alternative data sources and metrics Need comprehensive empirical work to assess alternatives Dozens of studies compared two or even three databases. However they: Focused on a single or small groups of journals or a small group of academics Only covered a small number of disciplines Typically focused on one or two metrics Hence our study provides: Cross-disciplinary comparison across all major disciplinary areas Comparison of 4 different metrics: publications, citations, h-index hI,annual (h-index corrected for career length and number of co-authors) 7
- 8. The bibliometric study (1): The basics Sample of 146 Associate and Full Professors at the University of Melbourne All main disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences, Life Sciences) were represented, 37 sub-disciplines Two full professors (1 male, 1 female) and two associate professors (1 male, 1 female) in each sub-discipline (e.g. management, marketing, accounting, economics) Citation metrics in WoS/ISI, Scopus and Google Scholar Collected citation data every 3 months for 2 years Google Scholar data collected with Publish or Perish (http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish) WoS/ISI and Scopus collected in the respective databases and imported into Publish or Perish to calculate metrics The overall conclusion: with appropriate metrics and data sources, citation metrics can be applied in the Social Sciences ISI H-index: Life Sciences mean 200% above Social Sciences mean GS hIa index: Life Sciences mean 1.5% below Social Sciences mean 8
- 9. The bibliometric study (2): Details on the sample Sample: 37 disciplines were subsequently grouped into five major disciplinary fields: Humanities: Architecture, Building & Planning; Culture & Communication, History; Languages & Linguistics, Law (19 observations), Social Sciences: Accounting & Finance; Economics; Education; Management & Marketing; Psychology; Social & Political Sciences (24 observations), Engineering: Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering; Computing & Information Systems; Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Infrastructure Engineering, Mechanical Engineering (20 observations), Sciences: Botany; Chemistry, Earth Sciences; Genetics; Land & Environment; Mathematics; Optometry; Physics; Veterinary Sciences; Zoology (44 observations), Life Sciences: Anatomy & Neurosciece; Audiology; Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Dentistry; Obstetrics & Gynaecology; Ophthalmology; Microbiology; Pathology; Physiology; Population Health (39 observations). 9
- 10. The bibliometric study (3): Descriptive statistics 10
- 11. 11
- 12. Different data-sources across disciplines: # of papers 12 Humanities Social Sciences Engineering Sciences Life Sciences Web of Science 16 30 81 98 109 Scopus 21 34 103 101 123 Google Scholar 93 115 143 149 189 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Averagenumber ofpapers
- 13. Different data-sources across disciplines: # of citations 13 Humanities Social Sciences Engineering Sciences Life Sciences Web of Science 61 591 897 2612 3139 Scopus 100 782 1132 2558 3313 Google Scholar 871 2604 1964 3984 4699 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Averagenumber ofcitations
- 14. Different data-sources across disciplines: # of citations 14 Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar Humanities 61 100 871 Social Sciences 591 782 2604 Engineering 897 1132 1964 Sciences 2612 2558 3984 Life Sciences 3139 3313 4699 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Citations
- 15. Different data-sources across disciplines: h-index 15 Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar Humanities 3.5 4.3 12.3 Social Sciences 9.6 12.0 21.5 Engineering 13.5 15.6 20.8 Sciences 25.6 25.6 30.1 Life Sciences 27.1 28.3 33.4 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 h-index
- 16. Different data-sources across disciplines: hIa index 16 Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar Humanities 0.14 0.18 0.36 Social Sciences 0.32 0.42 0.66 Engineering 0.33 0.41 0.53 Sciences 0.44 0.45 0.57 Life Sciences 0.43 0.46 0.65 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 hIaindex hIa: h-index corrected for academic age (to accommodate differences in career length) and number of co- authors (to remove discipline bias)
- 17. Quick comparison across disciplines H-index ISI data Life Sciences vs. Humanities: 27 vs. 3.5 i.e. nearly 8 times as high Life Sciences vs. Social Sciences: 27 vs. 9.5 i.e. nearly 3 times as high hIa-index GS data Life Sciences vs. Humanities: 0.65 vs. 0.34 i.e. nearly 2 times as high Life Sciences vs. Social Sciences: 0.65 vs. 0.66 i.e. nearly identical (1.5% lower) 19
- 18. Conclusion Will the use of citation metrics disadvantage the Social Sciences and Humanities? Not, if you use a database that includes publications important in those disciplines (e.g. books, national journals) Not, if you correct for differences in co-authorships Is peer review better than metrics in the Social Sciences and Humanities? Yes, in a way…. The ideal version of peer review (informed, dedicated, and unbiased experts) is better than a reductionist version of metrics (ISI h-index or citations) However, the inclusive version of metrics (GS hIa) is probably better than the likely reality of peer review (hurried semi-experts, potentially influenced by journal outlet and affiliation) In research evaluation at any level use a combination of peer review and metrics wherever possible, but: If reviewers are not experts, metrics might be a better alternative If metrics are used, use an inclusive database (GS, Microsoft Academic, or Scopus) and career and discipline adjusted metrics such as the hIa (Harzing, Alakangas & Adams, 2014) 21
- 19. Slides are available here 22 https://www.harzing.com/blog/2017/05/why-metrics-can-and-should-be-used-in-the-social-sciences
- 20. Want to know more? Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S. (2016) Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison, Scientometrics, 106(2): 787-804 For more details see: http://www.harzing.com/blog/2016/09/citation-analysis-for- the-social-sciences-metrics-and-datasources http://www.harzing.com/blog/2017/03/bibliometrics-in-the- arts-humanities-and-social-sciences http://www.harzing.com/research/quality-and-impact-of- academic-research Any questions? 23
- 21. Further reading on Google Scholar as a source for citation data Harzing, A.W.; Wal, R. van der (2008) Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis?, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1): 62-71 Harzing, A.W.; Wal, R. van der (2009) A Google Scholar h-index for Journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in Economics & Business?, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1): 41-46 Harzing, A.W. (2013) A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel Prize winners, Scientometrics, 93(3): 1057-1075 Harzing, A.W. (2014) A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013, Scientometrics, 98(1): 565-575 Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S. (2016) Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison, Scientometrics,106(2): 787-804 24
- 22. Further reading on problems with the Web of Science and new metrics Harzing, A.W. (2013) Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences?, Scientometrics, 93(1): 23-34 Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S.; Adams, D. (2014) hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences, Scientometrics, 99(3): 811-821 Harzing, A.W.; Mijnhardt, W. (2015) Proof over promise: Towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business, Scientometrics, 102(1): 727-749 Harzing, A.W. (2015) Health warning: Might contain multiple personalities. The problem of homonyms in Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators, Scientometrics,105(3): 2259-2270 Harzing, A.W. (2016) Microsoft Academic (Search): a Phoenix arisen from the ashes?, Scientometrics, 108(3):1637-1647 Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S. (2017) Microsoft Academic: Is the Phoenix getting wings?, Scientometrics, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 371-383 25