In which fields metrics agree more with peer review ?

Informações recentes no universo dos bolseiros. Notícias da imprensa sobre ciência são também bem-vindas.
cientista sempre presente
cientista sempre presente
Mensagens: 1135
Registado: quarta dez 09, 2015 8:17 am
University/ Institute: Minho

In which fields metrics agree more with peer review ?

Mensagem por Torgal » sexta nov 09, 2018 10:08 am

See the different scientific fields in Fig 1 (page 20) in the paper

It seems that at least for certain fields what some Colleagues did in Texas-Austin (email below) was not such a terrible thing after all.

De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 5 de Agosto de 2018 14:27
Assunto: On the use of h-index to evaluate academic performance

"I recently had the dubious pleasure of being on the Merit Review Committee at my previous institution. We had a rubric that we used to judge our fellow faculty, based on publications (number, journals, citations), and grants received, students mentored, course evaluations, service, and such. This was used to rank faculty by three criteria. Perversely, research scores were used to judge who got a lighter teaching load. Total scores were used to dole out merit raises (we had no annual built-in cost of living increase to adjust for inflation, just merit raises). Now, we were given about two weeks to score 40ish faculty, just as the fall semester began. You can be sure we didn't read every paper that everyone produced in the previous year, let alone the past five years (our relevant period). We may look at some papers, but time is tight. Instead, we were given H indices and cumulative citations and numbers of papers published, both career-total and over the previous 5 years (so as to not favor older faculty). There's quite a range of H-values (to pick one of several possible metrics), which makes it very tempting as a tool for ranking our peers" ... ad-to.html

Text by D.I.Bolnick, Univ.Texas-Austin (SCI h-index=46)