Open Access Archivangelism - Research Assessment

The UK's New HEFCE/REF OA Mandate Proposal

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:36:59 +0000

David Sweeney's new HEFCE/REF OA mandate proposal for consultation comes very close to providing the optimal OA mandate model:

(1) It separates the date on which deposit must be made (immediately upon acceptance for publication, with no differences across disciplines) from the date on which the deposit must be made OA (preferably immediately, but, at the latest, within an allowable embargo whose length will be adapted to the needs of each discipline).

(2) It specifies that the deposit must be made in the author's institutional repository (whence the metadata can be exported or harvested to institution-external discipline repositories immediately -- and the full-text once any embargo has elapsed).

(3) It makes immediate-deposit (but not immediate-OA) an eligibility precondition for submission to research evaluation (REF), thereby (very sensibly) recruiting institutions in monitoring and ensuring timely compliance with the mandate.

(4) It expresses no preference for gold OA publishing, leaving authors free to publish in whatever journal they choose.

(5) It expresses a preference for licensing certain re-use rights, but again leaves this to author choice.

I have been a strident critic of the Willetts/Finch/RCUK policy's preference for gold over green and its constraints on authors' freedom of journal choice. This new HEFCE mandate proposal would remedy all that and would make the UK's OA mandate once again compatible with green OA mandates the world over -- indeed, with (3) and (4) it provides the all-important compliance-verification mechanism that most OA mandates still lack.

I hope that once they have seriously reflected upon and understood this new mandate proposal, researchers and their institutions will see that it moots all the objections that have been raised to the Finch/RCUK mandate. And I profoundly hope that David Willetts will realize and understand that too.

I also hope that those who are impatient for immediate, embargo-free OA, CC-BY licenses and Gold OA will allow this HEFCE compromise mandate to be adopted and succeed, rather than trying to force their less urgent, less universal, and much more divisive conditions into the policy yet again.

The price of Green OA (per paper deposited) is negligibly small, compared to Gold OA. And institutional repositories are already created and paid up (for a variety of purposes) but they remain near-empty of their target OA content -- unless deposit is mandated.

Green deposit mandates have to have carrots and sticks to be effective. Funder mandates provide the carrot/stick for institutions (funding eligibility -- and enhanced impact -- if you deposit; ineligibility if you don't)

Double-paying publishers pre-emptively for gold now is fine -- if you have effectively mandated a green deposit mandate for all articles first (and you have the extra cash to double-pay publishers for subscriptions and gold).

But if you have not effectively mandated a green deposit mandate for all articles first, instead double-paying publishers pre-emptively for gold is not only a gratuitous waste of scarce research money, but a counterproductive retardant on OA growth, both in the UK and worldwide (in encouraging subscription publishers to offer hybrid gold and to increase their embargo lengths on green in order to ensure that UK authors must pick and pay for gold).

(Where gold [or a fee waiver] is offered for free to authors (& their institutions) by a journal they freely choose as suitable, authors are of course welcome to choose it -- as long as they also deposit their article in their Green OA institutional repository, just as everyone else is mandated to do.)

Global green OA grows anarchically, not journal by journal. If and when competition from green starts causing journal cancellations, journals will be forced to start cutting costs by downsizing, phasing out the obsolete print and online edition and offloading all access-provision and archiving onto the global network of green OA institutional repositories. The institutional cancellation savings will then (single-) pay for post-Green Fair Gold at an affordable, sustainable price (for peer review alone).

To instead double-pay publishers pre-emptively for gold now (in the name of "cushioning" the transition) while publishers promise to "plough back" all Gold OA double-payment into subscription savings (all publishers? all subscribers?) is simply to give publishers a license to keep charging as much as they like and never bother to do the cost-cutting and downsizing that universal mandatory green would force them to do.

If the UK double-pays for Gold pre-emptively rather than first effectively mandating Green for all UK research output, it has chosen the losing option in an unforced Prisoner's Dilemma: the UK loses and the rest of the world gains. Less an admirable moral stance or idealism or a "front-mover" advantage than an unreflective and somewhat stubborn rush for Fool's Gold.

Peter Suber: "The UK can do better..."

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 05:47:04 +0100

Mark Thorley wrote: "Stevan, ...As an advocate of Open Access I would like to think that you appreciate the fact that the UK is leading the world here..."

Mark, no, the UK is no longer leading the world with its new Finch/RCUK/BIS OA policy.

It's time to heed OA advocates that have been at this far longer than you, and fix the RCUK Policy:Peter Suber: "The UK can do better. In fact, the RCUK can do better. Its 2006 policy was better than the new policy. It only needed to be enforced."
The RCUK Policy is fixable. Indeed it can be made much better than the old RCUK policy. And the UK can once again take the worldwide lead in OA Policy:

I. Drop the 9 words that make the RCUK Policy say the opposite of what it means.

II. Adopt an effective compliance-verification mechanism for Green OA self-archiving:
(IIa) Deposit must be in the fundee's institutional repository.
      (This makes each UK institution responsible for monitoring and verifying timely compliance.)
(IIb) All articles must be deposited immediately upon acceptance for publication.
      (Publisher embargoes apply only to the date on which the deposit is made OA.)
(IIc) Repository deposit must be designated the sole mechanism for submitting publications for UK research assessment (REF).
      (Articles' deposit URL required in all requests for RCUK funding or renewal.)

It is still widely hoped that RCUK will act in a flexible, constructive way rather than a rigid, dogmatic one, in the face of the growing expression of the concerns of the research community and its OA advocates, in the UK and worldwide, about the ambiguity and the potential for perverse effects of the new RCUK OA Policy.

Stevan Harnad

BOAI-10 RECOMMENDATIONS
-- 1.1. Every institution of higher education should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty members are deposited in the institutions designated repository...

-- Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.

-- University policies should respect faculty freedom to submit new work to the journals of their choice. [emphasis added]

-- University policies should encourage but not require publication in OA journals [emphasis added] ...

-- 1.3. Every research funding agency, public or private, should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles reporting funded research are deposited in a suitable repository and made OA as soon as practicable.

-- Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication...

Success of U Liege Open Access Mandate Accelerated by Link to Performance Assessment

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 23:31:43 +0100

U Liege's Rector, Bernard Rentier, reports that over the past year deposits to the U. Liege repository (ORBi) have grown from 10 to 40 thousand publications, 25 thousand of them full-text. According to ROAR, this is the 3rd highest growth rate among the world's thousand identified institutional repositories. Viewed 650 thousand times and downloaded 61 thousand times, these 40 thousand deposits coincide with the first year in which, as a part of U Liege's Open Access Mandate, ORBi has served as U Liege's sole official means of submitting publications for performance review for academic promotion.

Universities UK on Open Access, Metrics, Mandates and the Research Excellence Framework

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:25:00 +0000

Universities UK recommends making all the research outputs submitted to the UK's new Research Excellence Framework (REF) Open Access (OA).

The UUK's recommendation is of course very welcome and timely.

All research funded by the RCUK research councils is already covered by the fact that all the UK councils already mandate OA. It is this policy, already adopted by the UK, that the US is now also contemplating adopting, in the form of the proposed Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), as well as the discussion in President Obama's ongoing OSTP Public Access Policy Forum.

But if HEFCE were to follow the UUK's recommendation, it would help to ensure Open Access to UK research funded by the EU (for which OA is only partially mandated thus far) and other funders, as well as to unfunded research -- for which OA is mandated by a still small but growing number of universities in the UK and worldwide. (The same UUK proposal could of course be taken up by UK's universities, for once they mandate OA for all their research output, all UK research, funded and unfunded, becomes OA!)

There is an arbitrary constraint on REF submissions, however, which would greatly limit the scope of an OA requirement (as well as the scope of REF itself): Only four research outputs per researcher may be submitted, for a span covering at least four years, rather than all research output in that span.

This limitation arises because the REF retains the costly and time-consuming process of re-reviewing, by the REF peer panels, of all the already peer-reviewed research outputssubmitted. This was precisely what it had earlier been proposed to replace by metrics, if they prove sufficiently correlated with -- and hence predictive of -- the peer panel ranklings. Now it will only be partially supplemented by a few metrics.

This is a pity, and an opportunity lost, both for OA and for testing and validating a rich and diverse new battery of metrics and initializing their respective weights, discipline by discipline. Instead, UUK has endorsed a simplistic (and likewise untested and arbitrary) a-priori weighting ("60/20/20 for outputs, impact and environment").

Harnad, S. (2009) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Scientometrics 79 (1) Also in Proceedings of 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds. (2007)

Collini on "Impact on humanities" in Times Literary Supplement

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:11:14 +0000

Commentary on:
Collini, S. (2009) Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. Times Literary Supplement. November 13 2009.

One can agree whole-heartedly with Professor Collini that much of the spirit and the letter of the RAE and the REF and their acronymous successors are wrong-headed and wasteful -- while still holding that measures ("metrics") of scholarly/scientific impact are not without some potential redeeming value, even in the Humanities. After all, even expert peer judgment, if expressed rather than merely silently mentalized, is measurable. (Bradley's observation on the ineluctability of metaphysics applies just as aptly to metrics: "Show me someone who wishes to refute metaphysics and I'll show you a metaphysician with a rival system.")

The key is to gather as rich, diverse and comprehensive a spectrum of candidate metrics as possible, and then test and validate them jointly, discipline by discipline, against the existing criteria that each discipline already knows and trusts (such as expert peer judgment) so as to derive initial weights for those metrics that prove to be well enough correlated with the discipline's trusted existing criteria to be useable for prediction on their own.

Prediction of what? Prediction of future "success" by whatever a discipline's (or university's or funder's) criteria for success and value might be. There is room for putting a much greater weight on the kinds of writings that fellow-specialists within the discipline find useful, as Professor Collini has rightly singled out, rather than, say, success in promoting those writings to the general public. The general public may well derive more benefit indirectly, from the impact of specialised work on specialists, than from its direct impact on themselves. And of course industrial applications are an impact metric only for some disciplines, not others.

Ceterum censeo: A book-citation impact metric is long overdue, and would be an especially useful metric for the Humanities.

Harnad, S. (2001) Research access, impact and assessment. Times Higher Education Supplement 1487: p. 16.

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Time to Convert to Metrics. Research Fortnight pp. 17-18.

Harnad, S. (2008) Open Access Book-Impact and "Demotic" Metrics Open Access Archivangelism October 10, 2008.

Harnad, S. (2008) Validating Research Performance Metrics Against Peer Rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (11) doi:10.3354/esep00088 Special Issue on "The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In Evaluating Scholarly Performance"

Harnad, S. (2009) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Scientometrics 79 (1)

Open Access and Research Conference 2008: Brisbane 24-25 September

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:32:04 +0100

Open Access and Research Conference 2008

STAMFORD PLAZA HOTEL,
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND
24-25 SEPTEMBER

"The way we create and disseminate knowledge has undergone profound change over the last ten years...

"...we have seen a worldwide move towards establishing frameworks in which we can optimise access to and reuse of research especially that which is publicly funded...

"This has been supported by the development of open access repositories, new publishing tools and models and more strategic management of copyright at the individual and institutional level.

"QUT along with many other institutions throughout the world has been a pioneer in putting in place the management practices and necessary infrastructure to promote access and innovation.

"We are proud to announce what we believe will be a truly landmark conference that will draw on experts from Australia and around the world speak on a range of topics such as evolving publishing models, repository management, e-Research, policy development, and legal and technical issues."

In addition to our line up of prominent Australian speakers, International Keynote Speakers include:

John Wilbanks, Executive Director of Science Commons

Dr Alma Swan, Founder of Key Perspectives: Consultants to the scholarly information industry

Dr Tony Hey, Corporate Vice President of the External Research Division of Microsoft Research

Professor Stevan Harnad, UQAM & School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton

Maarten Wilbers, Deputy Legal Counsel, European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)

Research Evaluation, Metrics and Open Access in the Humanities: Dublin 18-20 September

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:26:08 +0100

Research Evaluation, Metrics and Open Access in the Humanities
Coimbra-Group Workshop
Trinity College Dublin
18-20 September 2008

-- Aimed at Arts and Humanities researchers, Deans of Research, Librarians, research group leaders and policy makers within the Coimbra-Group member universities and the Irish University sector...

-- To compare established and innovative methods and models of research evaluation and assess their appropriateness for the Arts and Humanities sector...

-- To assess the increasing impact of bibliometrical approaches and Open Access policies on the Arts and Humanities sector...

Administrative Keystroke Mandates To Record Research Output Can Serve As Open Access Mandates Too

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:25:26 +0000

There is no need to keep waiting for governmental OA mandates.
Harnad, Stevan (2005) The OA Policy of Southampton University (ECS), UK: the "Keystroke" Strategy [Putting the Berlin Principle into Practice: the Southampton Keystroke Policy] . Delivered at Berlin 3 Open Access: Progress in Implementing the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, University of Southampton (UK).
University OA mandates are natural extensions of universities' existing record-keeping, asset management, and performance-assessment policies. They complement research-funder OA mandates, and are the most efficient and productive way to monitor and credit compliance and fulfillment for both. Australia's Arthur Sale has done the most work on this. Please read what he has to say:

Arthur Sale wrote in the American Scientist Open Access Forum:

The evidence is quite clear that advocacy does not work by itself, and never has worked anywhere. To repeat the bleeding obvious once again: depositing in repositories is avoidable work under a voluntary regime, and like all avoidable work it will be avoided by most academics, even if perceived to be in their best interests, and even if the work is minor. The work needs to be (a) required and (b) integrated into the work pattern of researchers, so it becomes the norm. This is the purpose of mandates - to make it clear to researchers that they are expected to do this work.

My research and published papers show that mandates do work, and they take a couple of years for the message to sink in. Enforcement need only be a light touch - reporting to heads of departments for example. [See references below.]

At the risk of boring some, may I point to a similar case in Australia. All universities are required to produce an annual return to the Australian Government of publications in the previous year in the categories of refereed journal articles, refereed conference papers, books, and book chapters. The universities make this known to their staff (a mandate), and they all fill out forms and provide photocopies of the works. The workload is considerably more than depositing a paper in a repository. The scheme has been going for many years and is regarded as part of the academic routine. The data is used by Government to determine part of the university block grant. The result is near 100% compliance.

What I am doing in Australia is pressing for this already existing mandate to be extended to the repositories. If the researcher deposits in the repository, and the annual return is automatically derived from the repository, then (a) the researcher wins because it takes him/her less time, (b) it takes the administrators less time as the process is automated and only needs to be audited, and (c) the repository delivers its usual benefits for those with eyes to see. All we need is for the research office to promulgate such a policy in each university. It is in their own interests as well as the university's.

Arthur Sale
University of Tasmania

Swan, A. and Brown, S. (2005) Open access self-archiving: An author study. JISC Technical Report, Key Perspectives Inc. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/

Sale, Arthur (2006) Researchers and institutional repositories, in Jacobs, Neil, Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, chapter 9, pages 87-100. Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited. http://eprints.utas.edu.au/257/

Sale, A. The Impact of Mandatory Policies on ETD Acquisition. D-Lib Magazine April 2006, 12(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/april2006-sale

Sale, A. Comparison of content policies for institutional repositories in Australia. First Monday, 11(4), April 2006. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_4/sale/index.html

Sale, A. The acquisition of open access research articles. First Monday, 11(9), October 2006. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_10/sale/index.html

Sale, A. (2007) The Patchwork Mandate D-Lib Magazine 13 1/2 January/February http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/sale/01sale.html

Victory for Labour, Research Metrics and Open Access Repositories in Australia

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:49:34 +0000

Posted by Arthur Sale in the American Scientist Open Access Forum:

Yesterday, Australia held a Federal Election. The Australian Labor Party (the previous opposition) have clearly won, with Kevin Rudd becoming the Prime-Minister-elect.

What has this to do with the American Scientist Open Access Forum? Well the policy of the ALP is that the plans for the Research Quality Framework (the RQF - our research assessment exercise) will be immediately scrapped, and it will be replaced by a cheaper and metrics-based assessment, presumably a year or two later.

At first sight this is a setback for open access in Australia, because institutional repositories are not essential for a metrics-based research assessment. They just help improve the metrics. However, the situation may be turned to advantage, and there are several major pluses.
(1) Previous RQF grants should have ensured that every university in Australia now has a repository. Just mostly empty, or mostly dark, or both.
(2) The advisers in the Department of Education, Science & Technology (DEST) havent changed. The Accessibility Framework (ie open access) is still in place as a goal.
(3) A new metric-based evaluation could and should be steered to be a multi-metric based one. The ALP has already stated that it will be discipline-dependent.
(4) If the Rudd government is serious about efficiency in higher education, they could simply instruct DEST to require universities to put all their currently reported publications in a repository (ID/OA policy), from which the annual reports would be automatically derived. In addition all the desired publication metrics would also be derived, at any time. The Accessibility Framework would be achieved.
It should now be crystal clear to every university in Australia that citations and other measures will be key in the future. It should be equally clear that they should do everything possible to increase their performance on these measures. Any university that fails to immediately implement an ID/OA mandate (Immediate Deposit, Open Access when possible) in its institutional repository is simply deciding to opt out of research competition, or mistakenly thinks that it knows better. Although I suppose there is still the weak excuse that it is all too hard to understand or think about.

Here is the edited text of a press release by the shadow minister before the election. The boldface over some paragraphs is mine.

Arthur Sale
Professor of Computer Science
University of Tasmania [BEGINS]
Senator Kim Carr
Labor Senator for Victoria
Shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research

Thursday, 15 November 2007 (58/07)
Building a strong future for Australian research

Federal Labors key research initiatives, announced during yesterdays Campaign Launch, highlight our commitment to a research revolution.

[snip]

A Rudd Labor Government will be committed to rebuilding the national innovation system and, over time, doubling the amount invested in R&D in Australia.

· Labor will bring responsibility for innovation, industry, science and research into a single Commonwealth Department.

· Labor will develop a set of national innovation priorities to sit over the national research priorities. Together, these will provide a framework for a national innovation system, ensuring that the objectives of research programs and other innovation initiatives are complementary.

· Labor will abolish the Howard Governments flawed Research Quality Framework, and replace it with a new, streamlined, transparent, internationally verifiable system of research quality assessment, based on quality measures appropriate to each discipline. These measures will be developed in close consultation with the research community. Labor will also address the inadequacies in current and proposed models of research citation. Labors model will recognise the contribution of Australian researchers to Australia and the world.

[snip]

· Labor recognises the importance of basic research in the creation of new knowledge, and also the value and breadth of Australian research effort across the humanities, creative arts and social sciences as well as scientific and technological disciplines.

The Howard Government has allocated $87 million for the implementation of the RQF. Labor will seek to redirect the residual funds to encourage genuine industry collaboration in research.

[snip]

UK Research Evaluation Framework: Validate Metrics Against Panel Rankings

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:32:04 +0000

SUMMARY: Three things need to be remedied in the UK's proposed HEFCE/RAE Research Evaluation Framework:
   (1) Ensure as broad, rich, diverse and forward-looking a battery of candidate metrics as possible -- especially online metrics -- in all disciplines.
   (2) Make sure to cross-validate them against the panel rankings in the last parallel panel/metric RAE in 2008, discipline by discipline. The initialized weights can then be fine-tuned and optimized by peer panels in ensuing years.
   (3) Stress that it is important -- indeed imperative -- that all University Institutional Repositories (IRs) now get serious about systematically archiving all their research output assets (especially publications) so they can be counted and assessed (as well as accessed!), along with their IR metrics (downloads, links, growth/decay rates, harvested citation counts, etc.).
   If these three things are systematically done -- (1) comprehensive metrics, (2) cross-validation and calibration of weightings, and (3) a systematic distributed IR database from which to harvest them -- continuous scientometric assessment of research will be well on its way worldwide, making research progress and impact more measurable and creditable, while at the same time accelerating and enhancing it.

Once one sees the whole report, it turns out that the HEFCE/RAE Research Evaluation Framework is far better, far more flexible, and far more comprehensive than is reflected in either the press release or the Executive Summary.

It appears that there is indeed the intention to use many more metrics than the three named in the executive summary (citations, funding, students), that the metrics will be weighted field by field, and that there is considerable open-mindedness about further metrics and about corrections and fine-tuning with time. Even for the humanities and social sciences, where "light touch" panel review will be retained for the time being, metrics too will be tried and tested.

This is all very good, and an excellent example for other nations, such as Australia (also considering national research assessment with its Research Quality Framework), the US (not very advanced yet, but no doubt listening) and the rest of Europe (also listening, and planning measures of its own, such as EurOpenScholar).

There is still one prominent omission, however, and it is a crucial one:

The UK is conducting one last parallel metrics/panel RAE in 2008. That is the last and best chance to test and validate the candidate metrics -- as rich and diverse a battery of them as possible -- against the panel rankings. In all other fields of metrics -- biometrics, psychometrics, even weather forecasting metrics before deployment the metric predictors first need to be tested and shown to be valid, which means showing that they do indeed predict what they were intended to predict. That means they must correlate with a "criterion" metric that has already been validated, or that has "face-validity" of some kind.

The RAE has been using the panel rankings for two decades now (at a great cost in wasted time and effort to the entire UK research community -- time and effort that could instead have been used to conduct the research that the RAE was evaluating: this is what the metric RAE is primarily intended to remedy).

But if the panel rankings have been unquestioningly relied upon for 2 decades already, then they are a natural criterion against which the new battery of metrics can be validated, initializing the weights of each metric within a joint battery, as a function of what percentage of the variation in the panel rankings each metric can predict.

This is called "multiple regression" analysis: N "predictors" are jointly correlated with one (or more) "criterion" (in this case the panel rankings, but other validated or face-valid criteria could also be added, if there were any). The result is a set of "beta" weights on each of the metrics, reflecting their individual predictive power, in predicting the criterion (panel rankings). The weights will of course differ from discipline by discipline.

Now these beta weights can be taken as an initialization of the metric battery. With time, "super-light" panel oversight can be used to fine-tune and optimize those weightings (and new metrics can always be added too), to correct errors and anomalies and make them reflect the values of each discipline.

(The weights can also be systematically varied to use the metrics to re-rank in terms of different blends of criteria that might be relevant for different decisions: RAE top-sliced funding is one sort of decision, but one might sometimes want to rank in terms of contributions to education, to industry, to internationality, to interdisciplinarity. Metrics can be calibrated continuously and can generate different "views" depending on what is being evaluated. But, unlike the much abused "university league table," which ranks on one metric at a time (and often a subjective opinion-based rather than an objectiveone), the RAE metrics could generate different views simply by changing the weights on some selected metrics, while retaining the other metrics as the baseline context and frame of reference.)

To accomplish all that, however, the metric battery needs to be rich and diverse, and the weight of each metric in the battery has to be initialised in a joint multiple regression on the panel rankings. It is very much to be hoped that HEFCE will commission this all-important validation exercise on the invaluable and unprecedented database they will have with the unique, one-time parallel panel/ranking RAE in 2008.

That is the main point. There are also some less central points:

The report says -- a priori -- that REF will not consider journal impact factors (average citations per journal), nor author impact (average citations per author): only average citations per paper, per department. This is a mistake. In a metric battery, these other metrics can be included, to test whether they make any independent contribution to the predictivity of the battery. The same applies to author publication counts, number of publishing years, number of co-authors -- even to impact before the evaluation period. (Possibly included vs. non-included staff research output could be treated in a similar way, with number and proportion of staff included also being metrics.)

The large battery of jointly validated and weighted metrics will make it possible to correct the potential bias from relying too heavily on prior funding, even if it is highly correlated with the panel rankings, in order to avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy which would simply collapse the Dual RAE/RCUK funding system into just a multiplier on prior RCUK funding.

Self-citations should not be simply excluded: they should be included independently in the metric battery, for validation. So should measures of the size of the citation circle (endogamy) and degree of interdisciplinarity.

Nor should the metric battery omit the newest and some of the most important metrics of all, the online, web-based ones: downloads of papers, links, growth rates, decay rates, hub/authority scores. All of these will be provided by the UK's growing network of UK Institutional Repositories. These will be the record-keepers -- for both the papers and their usage metrics -- and the access-providers, thereby maximizing their usage metrics.

REF should put much, much more emphasis on ensuring that the UK network of Institutional Repositories systematically and comprehensively records its research output and its metric performance indicators.

But overall, thumbs up for a promising initiative that is likely to serve as a useful model for the rest of the research world in the online era.

References

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35.

Brody, T., Kampa, S., Harnad, S., Carr, L. and Hitchcock, S. (2003) Digitometric Services for Open Archives Environments. Proceedings of European Conference on Digital Libraries 2003, pp. 207-220, Trondheim, Norway.

Harnad, S. (2006) Online, Continuous, Metrics-Based Research Assessment. Technical Report, ECS, University of Southampton.

Harnad, S. (2007) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Proceedings of 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Time to Convert to Metrics. Research Fortnight pp. 17-18.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 3(3).

See also: Prior Open Access Archivangelism postings on RAE and metrics

The following had been based on the earlier press alone, before seeing the full report. The press release had said:
"For the science-based disciplines, a new bibliometric indicator of research quality is proposed, based on the extent to which research papers are cited by other publications. This new indicator will be combined with research income and research student data, to drive the allocation of HEFCE research funding in these disciplines"

"For the arts, humanities and social sciences (where quantitative approaches are less developed) we will develop a light touch form of peer review, though we are not consulting on this aspect at this stage."
Comments:

(1) Citations, prior funding and student counts are fine, as candidate metrics. (Citations, suitably processed and contextually weighted, are a strong candidate, but it is important not to give prior funding too high a weight, or else it collapses the UK's Dual RAE/RCUK funding system into just a multiplier effect on prior RCUK funding.

(2) But where are the rest of the candidate metrics? article counts, book counts, years publishing, co-author counts, co-citations, download counts, link counts, download/citation growth rates, decay rates, hub/authority index, endogamy index... There is such a rich and diverse set of candidate metrics. It is completely arbitrary, and unnecessary, to restrict consideration to just an a-priori three.

(3) And how and against what are the metrics to be validated? The obvious first choice is the RAE panel rankings themselves: RAE has been relying on them unquestioningly for two decades now, and the 2008 RAE will be a (last) parallel panel/metric exercise.

(4) The weights on a rich, diverse battery of metrics should be jointly validated (using multiple regression analysis) against the panel rankings to initialize the weight of each metric, and then the weights should be calibrated and adjusted field by field, with the help of peer panels.

(5) It is not at all obvious that the humanities and social sciences do not have valid, predictive metrics too: They too write and read and use and cite articles and books, receive research funding, train postgraduate students, etc.

The metric RAE should be open-minded, open-ended forward-looking, in the digital online era, putting as many candidates as possible into the metric equation, testing the outcome against panel rankings, and then calibrating them, continuously, field by field, so as to optimise them. This is not the time to commit, a priori, to just 3 metrics, not yet validated and weighted, in science fields, nor to stick to panel review in other fields, again because of a priori assumptions about its metrics.

Let 1000 metric flowers bloom, initialize their weights against the parallel panel rankings (and any other validated or face-valid criteria) and then set to work optimising those initial weights, assessing continuously, field by field, across time. The metrics should be stored and harvestable from each institution's Open Access Institutional Repository, along with the research publications and data on which they are based.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

UUK report looks at the use of bibliometrics

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:54:40 +0000

Comments on UUK Press Release 8 November 2007:
UUK report looks at the use of bibliometrics

"This report will help Universities UK to formulate its position on the development of the new framework for replacing the RAE after 2008."

Some of the points for consideration in the report include:

Bibliometrics are probably the most useful of a number of variables that could feasibly be used to measure research performance.

What metrics count as "bibliometrics"? Do downloads? hubs/authorities? Interdisciplinarity metrics? Endogamy/exogamy metrics? chronometrics, semiometrics?

There is evidence that bibliometric indices do correlate with other, quasi-independent measures of research quality - such as RAE grades - across a range of fields in science and engineering.

Meaning that citation counts correlate with panel rankings in all disciplines tested so far. Correct.

There is a range of bibliometric variables as possible quality indicators. There are strong arguments against the use of (i) output volume (ii) citation volume (iii) journal impact and (iv) frequency of uncited papers.

The "strong" arguments are against using any of these variables alone, or without testing and validation. They are not arguments against including them in the battery of candidate metrics to be tested, validated and weighted against the panel rankings, discipline by discipline, in a multiple regression equation.

'Citations per paper' is a widely accepted index in international evaluation. Highly-cited papers are recognised as identifying exceptional research activity.

Citations per paper is one (strong) candidate metric among many, all of which should be co-tested, via multiple regression analysis, against the parallel RAE panel rankings (and other validated or face-valid performance measures).

Accuracy and appropriateness of citation counts are a critical factor.

Not clear what this means. ISI citation counts should be supplemented by other citation counts, such as Scopus, Google Scholar, Citeseer and Citebase: each can be a separate metric in the metric equation. Citations from and to books are especially important in some disciplines.

There are differences in citation behaviour among STEM and non-STEM as well as different subject disciplines.

And probably among many other disciplines too. That is why each discipline's regression equation needs to be validated separately. This will yield a different constellation of metrics as well as of beta weights on the metrics, for different disciplines.

Metrics do not take into account contextual information about individuals, which may be relevant.

What does this mean? Age, years since degree, discipline, etc. are all themselves metrics, and can be added to the metric equation.

They also do not always take into account research from across a number of disciplines.

Interdisciplinarity is a measurable metric. There are self-citations, co-author citations, small citation circles, specialty-wide citations, discipline-wide citations, and cross-disciplinary citations. These are all endogamy/exogamy metrics. They can be given different weights in fields where, say, interdisciplinarity is highly valued.

The definition of the broad subject groups and the assignment of staff and activity to them will need careful consideration.

Is this about RAE panels? Or about how to distribute researchers by discipline or other grouping?

Bibliometric indicators will need to be linked to other metrics on research funding and on research postgraduate training.

"Linked"? All metrics need to be considered jointly in a multiple regression equation with the panel rankings (and other validated or face-valid criterion metrics).

There are potential behavioural effects of using bibliometrics which may not be picked up for some years

Yes, metrics will shape behaviour (just as panel ranking shaped behaviour), sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Metrics can be abused -- but abuses can also be detected and named and shamed, so there are deterrents and correctives.

There are data limitations where researchers' outputs are not comprehensively catalogued in bibliometrics databases.

The obvious solution for this is Open Access: All UK researchers should deposit all their research output in their Institutional Repositories (IRs). Where it is not possible to set access to a deposit as OA, access can be set as Closed Access, but the bibliographic metadata will be there. (The IRs will not only provide access to the texts and the metadata, but they will generate further metrics, such as download counts, chronometrics, etc.)

The report comes ahead of the HEFCE consultation on the future of research assessment expected to be announced later this month. Universities UK will consult members once this is published.

Let's hope both UUK and HEFCE are still open-minded about ways to optimise the transition to metrics!

References

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35.

Brody, T., Kampa, S., Harnad, S., Carr, L. and Hitchcock, S. (2003) Digitometric Services for Open Archives Environments. In Proceedings of European Conference on Digital Libraries 2003, pp. 207-220, Trondheim, Norway.

Harnad, S. (2006) Online, Continuous, Metrics-Based Research Assessment. Technical Report, ECS, University of Southampton.

Harnad, S. (2007) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. In Proceedings of 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Time to Convert to Metrics. Research Fortnight pp. 17-18.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 3(3).

See also: Prior Open Access Archivangelism Postings on RAE and metrics

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

UK RAE Reform Should Be Evidence-Based

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:02:49 +0100

The UK Research Assessment Exercise has taken a few steps forward and a few steps back:

(1) In evaluating and rewarding the research performance of universities department by department, future RAEs (after 2008) will no longer, as before, assess only 4 selected papers per researcher, among those researchers selected for inclusion: All papers, by all departmental researchers, will be assessed. (Step forward)

(2) The assessment will be in terms of objective metrics, not just in terms of panel review. (Step forward)

(3) The metrics will be multiple, rather than just a single metric. (Step forward)

(4) The new system will apply to science, technology, and engineering, at least. (Step forward)

(5)The new system may only apply to science, technology and engineering. (Step Backward)

(6) The metrics considered may be only three, picked a priori: (i) prior research income, (ii) postgraduate numbers, and (iii) the "impact factor" (i.e., the average number of citations) of the journal in which each article was published. (Step Backward)

As I have pointed out many times before, (i) prior research income, if given too much weight, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and reduces the RAE to a multiplication factor on competitive research funding. The result would be that instead of the current two autonomous components in the UK's Dual Support System (RAE and RCUK), there would only be one: RCUK (and other) competitive proposal funding, multiplied by the RAE metric rank, dominated by prior funding.

To counterbalance against this, a rich spectrum of potential metrics needs to be tested in the 2008 RAE, and validated against the panel review rankings, which will still be collected in the 2008 parallel RAE. Besides (i) research income, (ii) postgraduate student counts, and (iii) journal impact factors, there is a vast spectrum of other candidate metrics, including (iv) citation metrics for each article itself (rather than just its journal's average), (iv) download metrics, (v) citation and download growth curve metrics, (vi) co-citation metrics, (vii) hub/authority metrics, (viii) endogamy/interdisciplinarity metrics (ix) book citation metrics, (x) web link metrics, (xi) comment tag metrics, (xii) course-pack metrics, and many more.

All these candidate metrics should be tested and validated against the panel rankings in RAE 2008, in a multiple regression equation. The selection and weighting of each metric should be adjusted, discipline by discipline, rationally and empirically, rather than a priori, as is being proposed now.

Harnad, S. (2007) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. In Proceedings of 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds.

(I might add that RCUK's plans to include "potential economic benefits to the UK" among the criteria for competitive research funding could do with a little more rational and empirical support too, rather than being adopted a priori.)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

Validating Open Access Metrics for RAE 2008

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:10:00 +0100

SUMMARY: The United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) has two pluses and two (correctable) minuses:
(+1) It is a good idea to have a national research performance evaluation to monitor and reward research productivity and progress.
(+2) It is also a good idea to convert the costly, time-consuming, wasteful (and potentially biased) panel-based RAE of past years into an efficient, unbiased metric-based RAE, using objective measures that can be submitted automatically online, with the panel's role now only being to monitor and fine-tune the resulting rankings.
(-1) The biggest flaw concerns the metrics that will be used. Metrics first have to be tested and validated, discipline by discipline, to ensure that they are accurate indicators of research performance. Since the UK has relied on the RAE panel evaluations for two decades, and since the last RAE (2008) before conversion to metrics is to be a parallel panel/metrics exercise, the natural thing to do is to test as many candidate metrics as possible in this exercise, and to cross-validate them against the rankings given by the panels, separately, in each discipline. The prior-funding metric needs to be used cautiously, to avoid bias and self-fulfilling prophecy; and the citation-count metric is a good candidate, but only one of many potential metrics that can and should be tested in the parallel RAE 2008 metric/panel exercise. Other metrics include co-citation counts, download counts, download and citation growth and longevity counts, hub/authority scores, interdisciplinarity scores.
(-2) RAE 2008 is needlessly insisting that researchers submit the publishers' PDFs for the 2008 exercise. It should instead require researchers to deposit their own peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final drafts in their own University's Institutional Repositories (IRs) for research assessment, where RAE can access them directly. This will not only provide the research database for assessment, but it will also help to accelerate the growth and benefits of Open Access in the UK and worldwide.
There is still time to fully remedy (-1) and (-2).

The United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is doing two things right. There are also two things it is planning to do that are currently problematic, but that could easily be made right. Let's start with what RAE is already doing right:

(+1) It is a good idea to have a national research performance evaluation to monitor and reward research productivity and progress. Other countries will be following and eventually emulating the UK's lead. (Australia is already emulating it.)

(+2) It is also a good idea to convert the costly, time-consuming, wasteful (and potentially biased) panel-based RAE of past years into an efficient, unbiased metric-based RAE, using objective measures that can be submitted automatically online, with the panel's role now only being to monitor and fine-tune the resulting rankings. This way the RAE will no longer take UK researchers' precious time away from actually doing UK research in order to resubmit and locally "re-peer-review" work that has already been submitted, published and peer-reviewed, in national and international scholarly and scientific journals.

But, as with all policies that are being shaped collectively by disparate (and sometimes under-informed) policy-making bodies, two very simple and remediable flaws in the reformed RAE system have gone detected and hence uncorrected. They can still be corrected, and there is still hope that they will be, as they are small, easily fixed flaws; but, if left unfixed, they will have negative consequences, compromising the RAE as well as the RAE reforms:

(-1) The biggest flaw concerns the metrics that will be used. Metrics first have to be tested and validated, discipline by discipline, to ensure that they are accurate indicators of research performance. Since the UK has relied on the RAE panel evaluations for two decades, and since the last RAE (2008) before conversion to metrics is to be a parallel panel/metrics exercise, the natural thing to do is to test as many candidate metrics as possible in this exercise, and to cross-validate them against the rankings given by the panels, separately, in each discipline. (Which metrics are valid performance indicators will differ from discipline to discipline.)

All indications so far are that this cross-validation exercise is not what RAE 2008 and HEFCE are planning to do. Instead, there is a focus on a few pre-selected metrics, rather than the very rich spectrum of potential metrics that could be tested. The two main pre-selected metrics are (-1a) prior research funding and (-1b) citation counts.

(-1a) Prior research funding has already been shown to be extremely highly correlated with the RAE panel rankings in a few (mainly scientific) disciplines, but this was undoubtedly because the panels, in making their rankings, already had those metrics in hand, as part of the submission. Hence the panels themselves could explicitly (or implicitly) count them in making their judgments! Now a correlation between metrics and panel rankings is desirable initially, because that is the way to launch and validate the candidate metrics. In the case of this particular metric, however, not only is there a potential interaction, indeed a bias, that makes the prior-funding metric and the panel ranking non-independent, and hence invalidates the test of this metric's validity, but there is also a deeper reason for not putting a lot of weight on the prior-funding metric:

The UK has a Dual Support System for research funding: (I) Competitive Individual Researcher Project Proposals (RCUK) and (II) the RAE panel rankings (awarding top-sliced research funding to University Departments, based on their research performance). The prior-funding metric is determined largely by (I). If it is then also given a heavy weight in (II), then that is not improving the RAE [i.e., (II)]: it is merely collapsing the UK's Dual System into (I) alone, thereby doing away with the RAE altogether. As if this were not bad enough, the prior-funding metric is not even a valid metric in many of the RAE disciplines.

(-1b) Citations counts are a much better potential candidate metric. Indeed, in many of the RAE disciplines, citation counts have already been tested and shown to be correlated with the panel rankings, although not nearly as highly correlated as prior funding (in those few disciplines where prior funding is indeed highly correlated). This somewhat weaker correlation in the case of the citation metric is a good thing, because it leaves room for other metrics to contribute to the assessment outcome too, making the joint outcome more accurate, balanced and congruent with each discipline's profile. It is unlikely, and undesirable, to expect performance evaluation to be based on one single metric. Citation counts, however, are certainly a strong candidate for serving as a particularly important one among the array of multiple metrics to be validated and used in future RAEs. Citation counts also have the virtue that they were not explicitly available to the RAE panels when they made their rankings (indeed, it was explicitly forbidden to submit or count citations). So their already-confirmed correlation with the RAE panel rankings is a genuine empirical correlation rather than an explicit bias.

Hence the prior-funding metric (-1a) needs to be used cautiously, to avoid bias and self-fulfilling prophecy; and the citation-count metric (-2b) is a good candidate, but only one of many potential metrics that can and should be tested in the parallel RAE 2008 metric/panel exercise. (Other metrics include co-citation counts, download counts, download and citation growth and longevity counts, hub/authority scores, interdisciplinarity scores, and many other rich measures for which RAE 2008 is the ideal time to do the testing and validation, discipline by disciplines, as it is virtually certain that disciplines will differ in which metrics are predictive for them, and what the weightings of each metric should be.) Yet it looks as if RAE 2008 and HEFCE are not currently planning to commission this all-important validation analysis, testing metrics against panel rankings for a rich array of candidate metrics. This is a huge flaw and oversight, although it can still be easily remedied by going ahead and doing such a systematic cross-validation study after all.

For such a systematic metric/panel cross-validation study in RAE 2008, however, the array of candidate metrics has to be made as rich and diverse as possible. The RAE is not currently making any effort to collect as many potential metrics as possible in RAE 2008, and this is partly because it is overlooking the growing importance of online, Open Access metrics -- and indeed overlooking the growing importance of Open Access itself, both in research productivity and progress itself, and in evaluating it.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 3(3).

Harnad, S. (2007) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. In: Proceedings of 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds.

Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2006) The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable, in Jacobs, N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. Chandos.

This brings us to the second flaw in HEFCE's RAE 2008 plans:

(-2) For no logical or defensible reason at all, RAE 2008 is insisting that researchers submit the publishers' PDFs for the 2008 exercise. Now it does represent some progress that the RAE is accepting electronic drafts rather than requiring hard copy, as in past years. But in insisting that those electronic drafts must be the publisher's PDF, the RAE is creating two unnecessary problems.
(-2a) One unnecessary problem, a minor one, is that the RAE imagines that in order to have the publisher's PDF for evaluation, they need to seek (or even pay for) permission from the publisher. This is complete nonsense! Researchers (i.e., the authors) submit their own published work to the RAE for evaluation. For the researchers, this is Fair Dealing (Fair Use) and no publisher permission or payment whatsoever is needed. (As it happens, I believe HEFCE has worked out a "special arrangement" whereby publishers "grant permission" and "waive payment." But the completely incorrect notion that permission or payment were even at issue, in principle, has an important negative consequence, which I will now describe.)

What HEFCE should have done -- instead of mistakenly imagining that it needed permission to access the papers of UK researchers for research evaluation -- was to require researchers to deposit their own peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final drafts in their own University's Institutional Repositories (IRs) for research assessment. The HEFCE panels could then access them directly in the IRs for evaluation.

This would have ensured that all UK research output was deposited in each UK researcher's university IR. There is no publisher permission issue for the RAE: The deposits can, if desired, be made Closed Access rather than Open Access, so only the author, the employer and the RAE panels can access the full text of the deposit. Merely depositing an author's own papers internally and for research evaluation is Fair Dealing and requires absolutely no permission from anyone.

(-2b) But, as a bonus, requiring the deposit of all UK research output (or even just the four "best papers" that are currently the arbitrary limit for RAE submissions) into the researcher's IR for RAE evaluation would have ensured that 62% of those papers could immediately have been made OA (because 62% of journals already endorse immediate OA self-archiving). And for the remaining 38% this would have allowed each IR's "Fair Use" Button to be used by researchers webwide to request an individual email copy semi-automatically (with those "eprint requests" providing a further potential metric, alongside download counts).

Instead, HEFCE needlessly insisted on the publisher's PDF (which, by the way, could likewise have been deposited by all authors in their IRs, as Closed Access, without needing any permission from their publishers) being submitted to RAE directly. This effectively cut off not only a rich potential source of RAE metrics, but a powerful incentive for providing OA, which has been shown, in itself, to increase downloads and citations directly in all disciplines so far tested.

To recapitulate: two pluses -- (+1) research performance itself, and (+2) conversion to metrics -- plus two (correctable) minuses -- (-1) failure to explicitly provide for the systematic evaluation of a rich candidate spectrum of metrics against the RAE 2008 panel rankings and (-2) failure to require deposit of the authors' papers in their own IRs, to generate more OA metrics, more OA, and more UK research impact.

The good news is that there is still time to fully remedy (-1) and (-2), if only policy-makers take a moment to listen, think it through, and do the little that needs to be done to fix it.

Appendix: Are Panel Rankings Face-Valid?

It is important to allay a potential misunderstanding: It is definitely not the case that the RAE panel rankings are themselves infallible or face-valid! The panelists are potentially biased in many ways. And RAE panel review was never really "peer review," because peer review means consulting the most qualified specialists in the world for each specific paper, whereas the panels are just generic UK panels, evaluating all the UK papers in their discipline: It is the journals who already conducted the peer review.

So metrics are not just needed to put an end to the waste and the cost of the existing RAE, but also to try to put the outcome on a more reliable, objective, valid and equitable basis. The idea is not to duplicate the outcome of the panels, but to improve it.

Nevertheless -- and this is the critical point -- the metrics do have to be validated; and, as an essential first step, they have to be cross-validated against the panel rankings, discipline by discipline. For even though those panel rankings are and always were flawed, they are what the RAE has been relying upon, completely, for two decades.

So the first step is to make sure that the metrics are chosen and weighted so as to get as close a fit to the panel rankings as possible, discipline by discipline. Then, and only then, can the "ladder" of the panel-rankings -- which got us where we are -- be tossed away, allowing us to rely on the metrics alone -- which can then be continuously calibrated and optimised in future years, with feedback from future meta-panels that are monitoring the rankings generated by the metrics and, if necessary, adjusting and fine-tuning the metric weights or even adding new, still to be discovered and tested metrics to them.

In sum: despite their warts, the current RAE panel rankings need to be used to bootstrap the new metrics into usability. Without that prior validation based on what has been used until now, the metrics are just hanging from a skyhook and no one can say whether or not they measure what the RAE panels have been measuring until now. Without validation, there is no continuity in the RAE and it is not really a "conversion" to metrics, but simply an abrupt switch to another, untested assessment tool.

(Citation counts have been tested elsewhere, in other fields, but as there has never been anything of the scope and scale of the UK RAE, across all disciplines in an entire country's research output, the prior patchwork testing of citation counts as research performance indicators is nowhere near providing the evidence that would be needed to make a reliable, valid choice of metrics for the UK RAE: only cross-validation within the RAE parallel metric/panel exercise itself -- jointly with a rich spectrum of other candidate metrics -- can provide that kind of evidence, and the requisite continuity, for a smooth, rational transition from panel rankings to metrics.)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

The Death of Peer Review? Rumors Premature...

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:51:48 +0000

(All quotes are from "The death of peer review" by Natasha Gilbert in Research notes, The Guardian, Tuesday December 12, 2006)

Guardian: "The chancellor has decided to do away with the age-old, and trusted, system of peer review for assessing the quality of science coming out of the UK's universities - which has been used as the basis for carving up public funding."

(1) Peer review of research publications is conducted by the referees consulted by peer-reviewed journals.

(2) Peer review of competitive research grant applications is conducted by the referees consulted by research funding councils (RCUK).

(3) The RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) is neither a research journal nor a competitive research grant funding council.

(4) The RAE is part of a dual research funding system: (i) competitive research grant applications plus (ii) top-sliced funding based on RAE ranking of each university department's research performance.

(5) The RAE panel review is not peer review, and never has been peer review: It is a time-consuming, wasteful re-review of already peer-reviewed publications.

(6) "Metrics" are statistical indicators of research performance such as publication counts, citations, downloads, links, students, funding, etc.

(7) Metrics are already highly correlated with RAE rankings.

(8) What has (at long last) been replaced by metrics is the time-consuming, wasteful RAE panel re-review of already peer-reviewed publications.

We should be celebrating the long overdue death of RAE panel re-review, not prematurely feting the demise of peer review itself, which is alive and well.

A more worrisome question concerns which metrics will be used:

Guardian: "From 2010-11, science, engineering, technology and medicine (SET) subjects will instead be assessed using statistical indicators, such as the number of postgraduate students in a department and the amount of money a department brings in through its research."

The fallacy here is that the RAE is supposed to be part of a dual funding system. If competitive funding is used as a heavily weighted metric, it is tantamount to collapsing it all into just one system -- competitive grant applications -- and merely increasing the amount of money given to the winners: A self-fulfilling prophecy and a whopping "Matthew Effect."

Yet in the OA world there are a rich variety of potential metrics, which should be tested and validated and customised to each discipline.

Let 1000 RAE Metric Flowers Bloom: Avoid Matthew Effect as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

"Metrics" are Plural, Not Singular: Valid Objections From UUK About RAE
Guardian: "This new system should solve the much-complained-about bureaucracy of the research assessment exercise (RAE). But some, such as the Royal Society, the UK's academy of science, are adamant that sounding the death-knell for peer review in SET subjects is a bad move."

Metrics will put an end to wasting UK researchers' time re-reviewing and being re-reviewed, allowing them to devote their time instead to doing research. But a biassed and blinkered choice of metrics will sound the death-knell of the dual funding system (not peer review).

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

Open Research Metrics

nospam@example.com (Stevan Harnad) — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:53:45 +0000

Peter Suber: "If the metrics have a stronger OA connection, can you say something short (by email or on the blog) that I could quote for readers who aren't clued in, esp. readers outside the UK?"

(1) In the UK (Research Assessment Exercise, RAE) and Australia (Research Quality Framework, RQF) all researchers and institutions are evaluated for "top-sliced" funding, over and above competitive research proposals.

(2) Everywhere in the world, researchers and research institutions have research performance evaluations, on which careers/salaries, research funding, economic benefits, and institutional/departmental ratings depend.

(3) There is now a natural synergy growing between OA self-archiving, Institutional Repositories (IRs), OA self-archiving mandates, and the online "metrics" toward which both the RAE/RQF and research evaluation in general are moving.

(4) Each institution's IR is the natural place from which to derive and display research performance indicators: publication counts, citation counts, download counts, and many new metrics, rich and diverse ones, that will be mined from the OA corpus, making research evaluation much more open, sensitive to diversity, adapted to each discipline, predictive, and equitable.

(5) OA Self-Archiving not only allows performance indicators (metrics) to be collected and displayed, and new metrics to be developed, but OA also enhances metrics (research impact), both competitively (OA vs. NOA) and absolutely (Quality Advantage: OA benefits the best work the most, and Early Advantage), as well as making possible the data-mining of the OA corpus for research purposes. (Research Evaluation, Research Navigation, and Research Data-Mining are all very closely related.)

(6) This powerful and promising synergy between Open Research and Open Metrics is hence also a strong incentive for institutional and funder OA mandates, which will in turn hasten 100% OA: Their connection needs to be made clear, and the message needs to be spread to researchers, their institutions, and their funders.

(Needless to say, closed, internal, non-displayed metrics are also feasible, where appropriate.)

Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads:

UK "RAE" Evaluations (began Nov 2000)
Big Brother and Digitometrics (May 2001)
Scientometric OAI Search Engines (began Aug 2002)
UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review (Oct 2002)
Need for systematic scientometric analyses of open-access data (began Dec 2002)
Potential Metric Abuses (and their Potential Metric Antidotes) (began Jan 2003)
Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based (began Mar 2006)
Australia stirs on metrics (Jun 2006)
Let 1000 RAE Metric Flowers Bloom: Avoid Matthew Effect as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Jun 2006)
Australia's RQF (Nov 2006)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum