• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: lesson learnt from UK’s national research assessment exercise
【2h】

Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: lesson learnt from UK’s national research assessment exercise

机译：基于指标的评估与同行评审的研究成果评估：从英国国家研究评估活动中汲取的教训

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose:udThere 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, conference 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.ududDesign and methodology:udTo 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.ududFindings:udA 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.ududPractical implications:udThe 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.ududOriginality:udAccording to the author’s knowledge, this is the first time an investigation has estimated the monetary value of a good research output.
机译：目的： ud关于研究成果的货币价值的一般性询问，因为现代学术界的大量资金本质上是授予以期刊文章，会议论文，表演，作品，展览，书籍形式呈现的良好研究以及书籍的章节等，这最终导致另一个问题，即不同学科的价值是否不同。对这些问题的回答不仅将为学者和研究人员提供帮助，还将帮助高等教育机构（HEI）在其行政和研究政策中做出明智的决定。 ud ud设计和方法： ud为了研究这两个问题，我们采用了联合王国最近完成了一项国家研究评估活动，即案例研究，即2014年卓越研究框架（REF）。本研究的所有数据均来自公开发行的出版物，这些出版物来自REF结果的数字存储库和HEFCE的资金分配。 ud ud调查结果： ud在REF周期内，世界领先的年收入在£7504到£14,639之间，而国际上杰出的作品则可赚取1876英镑至3659英镑，具体取决于他们的研究领域。其次，对英国高等教育机构在五个研究领域中提交的25315篇期刊文章的影响力等级及其获得的资助进行的调查显示，四分之一期刊出版物的百分比与临床医学，物理学和医学杂志4 *产出百分比之间存在线性关系心理学/精神病学/神经科学UoA，在《经典与人类学/发展研究》 UoA中未发现任何关联，原因是后两个学科的大多数出版物都不是期刊论文。 ud ud实践意义： ud从政府用于研究的资金的角度来指示研究成果的货币价值，以及产生良好产出的原因，即高质量产出与出版物来源之间是否存在关系。这些发现还可能影响高校的未来REF提交策略，并确定期刊的影响力等级不一定反映每个学科的研究质量，并且这可能会对总体学术交流的未来产生重大影响。 ud ud原创性： ud根据作者的知识，这是第一次调查估算出良好研究成果的货币价值。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号