PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Research Evaluation· 2015Q1

Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review

Sarah de Rijcke, Paul Wouters, Alexander Rushforth, Thomas Franssen et al.

Short summary

A review of the literature reveals that evaluation systems and indicator use in research are highly heterogeneous, with significant empirical evidence of 'gaming' and strategic responses by scientific communities.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Research evaluation systems and indicator use are characterized by extreme heterogeneity across disciplines and publication media.
  • Empirical evidence exists regarding the effects of evaluation exercises on scientific communities.
  • The literature documents instances of 'gaming' evaluation indicators and strategic responses to assessment requirements.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

This review of the international literature on evaluation systems, evaluation practices, and metrics (mis)uses was written as part of a larger review commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to inform their independent assessment of the role of metrics in research evaluation (2014–5). The literature on evaluation systems, practices, and effects of indicator uses is extremely heterogeneous: it comprises hundreds of sources published in different media, spread over disciplines, and with considerable variation in the nature of the evidence. A condensation of the state-of-the-art in relevant research is therefore highly timely. Our review presents the main strands in the literature, with a focus on empirical materials about possible effects of evaluation exercises, ‘gaming’ of indicators, and strategic responses by scientific communities and others to requirements in research assessments. In order to increase visibility and availability, an adapted and updated review is presented here as a stand-alone—after authorization by HEFCE.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Research Evaluation, 2015 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Public Administration

Public AdministrationSocial Sciences