Correction: Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment exercise (PLoS ONE (2017) 12: 7 (e0179722) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179722);Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment exercise

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 7, 2017, Pages

  Koya, Kushwanth ^a   Chowdhury, Gobinda ^a  

^a NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOLOGY; CLINICAL MEDICINE; EDUCATION; EXERCISE; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NEUROSCIENCE; PHYSICS; PSYCHIATRY; PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85023160893     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190337     Document Type: Erratum

References (29)

1. Bornmann L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013 Feb 1; 64(2):217-33.
2. Kousha K & Thelwall M. Web impact metrics for research assessment. in Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Edited by Cronin B and Sugimoto CR. MIT Press: Cambridge, 2014.
3. Priem J. Altmetrics. in Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Edited by Cronin B and Sugimoto CR. MIT Press: Cambridge, 2014.
4. Moed HF, Halevi G. Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015 Oct 1; 66(10):1988-2002.
5. Wilsdon J. In defense of the Research Excellence Framework. The Guardian. Available at http://www. Theguardian. com/science/political-science/2015/jul/27/in-defence-of-the-ref (accessed 29 October, 2015); 2015.
6. Wilsdon J. The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. SAGE; 2016 Jan 20.
7. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, De Rijcke S, Rafols I. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015 Apr 23; 520(7548):429. https://doi. org/10. 1038/520429a PMID: 25903611
8. Martin BR. Assessing the impact of basic research on society and the economy. In Rethinking the impact of basic research on society and the economy (WF-EST International Conference, 11 May 2007), Vienna, Austria 2007 May.
9. Universities UK. The impact of universities on the UK economy. Universities UK. Available at www. universitiesuk. Ac. uk/highereducation. (accessed 11 November, 2015); 2015.
10. HESA. Finance Plus 2011-2012. Cheltenham: HESA; 2013.
11. REF. About the REF. Research Assessment Framework 2014. Available at http://www. ref. Ac. uk/about/. (accessed September 15, 2016); 2014.
12. The Complete University Guide. Methodology in building the league tables for UK Universities. Available at http://www. Thecompleteuniversityguide. co. uk/league-tables/methodology. (accessed January 24, 2016); 2016.
13. HEFCE. Annual funding allocations. Available at http://www. hefce. Ac. uk/funding/annallocns/. (accessed September 12, 2016); 2015.
14. Jump P. Winners and losers in HEFCE funding allocations. Times Higher Education. 2015 Mar; 26:6-9.
15. REF. Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Research Assessment Framework 2014. Available at http://www. ref. Ac. uk/media/ref/content/pub/ assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum. pdf. (accessed 29 October, 2015); 2014
16. Cramer D. Advanced quantitative data analysis. McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2003 Jul 1.
17. Cramer D. Fundamental statistics for social research: step-by-step calculations and computer techniques using SPSS for Windows. Psychology Press; 1998.
18. Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics. 2016 May 31; 10(2):365-91.
19. Vieira ES, Cabral JA, Gomes JA. How good is a model based on bibliometric indicators in predicting the final decisions made by peers. Journal of Informetrics. 2014 Apr 30; 8(2):390-405.
20. Jayasinghe UW, Marsh HW, Bond N. Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2001 Dec; 23(4):343-64.
21. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, Caprasecca A. Allocative efficiency in public research funding: Can bibliometrics help. Research policy. 2009 Feb 28; 38(1):206-15.
22. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA. Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics. 2011 Jun 1; 87(3):499-514.
23. Feeney MK, Welch EW. Realized publicness at public and private research universities. Public Administration Review. 2012 Mar 1; 72(2):272-84.
24. Marks MS, Marsh M, Schroer TA, Stevens TH. Misuse of journal impact factors in scientific assessment. Traffic. 2013 Jun 1; 14(6):611-2. https://doi. org/10. 1111/tra. 12075 PMID: 23682643
25. Vanclay JK. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification. Scientometrics. 2012 Aug 1; 92(2):211-38.
26. Watermeyer R, Hedgecoe A. Selling ìmpact': peer reviewer projections of what is needed and what counts in REF impact case studies. A retrospective analysis. Journal of Education Policy. 2016 Sep 2; 31(5):651-65.
27. Universities UK. Press Release. Universities UK. (accessed 17 November, 2015)http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/UniversitiesUKbackscommitteecallforincreaseinsciencefunding.aspx#.Vkns7HbhBpg
28. Marks MS, Marsh M, Schroer TA, Stevens TH. Misuse of journal impact factors in scientific assessment. Traffic. 2013 Jun 1; 14(6):611-2. https://doi. org/10. 1111/tra. 12075 PMID: 23682643
29. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 1997 Feb 15; 314(7079):498. PMID: 9056804