What do UK academics cite? An analysis of references cited in UK scholarly outputs

This study used a bibliometric method to find quantitative evidence of publication and citing patterns within UK academia. The publications of a random sample of UK research—active academics for each of the years 2003 and 2008—were collected and analysed to gather data regarding referencing practices, along with any identifiable trends between the 2 years. References were categorised by type of material to show the proportions of each type used. Comparisons between the 2 years showed that the use of journal articles had increased. There was also an increase in the average number of publications per author. A large number of authors had no publications in the target year

The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. The review was chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, supported by an independent and multidisciplinary group of experts in scientometrics, research funding, research policy, publishing, university management and administration. This review has gone beyond earlier studies to take a deeper look at potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators. It has explored the use of metrics across different disciplines, and assessed their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact. It has analysed their role in processes of research assessment, including the next cycle of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It has considered the changing ways in which universities are using quantitative indicators in their management systems, and the growing power of league tables and rankings. And it has considered the negative or unintended effects of metrics on various aspects of research culture. The report starts by tracing the history of metrics in research management and assessment, in the UK and internationally. It looks at the applicability of metrics within different research cultures, compares the peer review system with metric-based alternatives, and considers what balance might be struck between the two. It charts the development of research management systems within institutions, and examines the effects of the growing use of quantitative indicators on different aspects of research culture, including performance management, equality, diversity, interdisciplinarity, and the ‘gaming’ of assessment systems. The review looks at how different funders are using quantitative indicators, and considers their potential role in research and innovation policy. Finally, it examines the role that metrics played in REF2014, and outlines scenarios for their contribution to future exercises

Embracing the future: embedding digital repositories in the University of London

Digital repositories can help Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to develop coherent and coordinated approaches to capture, identify, store and retrieve intellectual assets such as datasets, course material and research papers. With the advances of technology, an increasing number of Higher Education Institutions are implementing digital repositories. The leadership of these institutions, however, has been concerned about the awareness of and commitment to repositories, and their sustainability in the future. This study informs a consortium of thirteen London institutions with an assessment of current awareness and attitudes of stakeholders regarding digital repositories in three case study institutions. The report identifies drivers for, and barriers to, the embedding of digital repositories in institutional strategy. The findings therefore should be of use to decision-makers involved in the development of digital repositories. Our approach was entirely based on consultations with specific groups of stakeholders in three institutions through interviews with specific individuals. The research in this report was prepared for the SHERPA-LEAP Consortium and conducted by RAND Europe

The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Levi Library Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.10Many indicators derived from the web have been proposed to supplement citation-based indicators in support of research assessments. These indicators, often called altmetrics, are available commercially from Altmetric.com and Elsevier’s Plum Analytics or can be collected directly. These organisations can also deliver altmetrics to support institutional selfevaluations. The potential advantages of altmetrics for research evaluation are that they may reflect important non-academic impacts and may appear before citations when an article is published, thus providing earlier impact evidence. Their disadvantages often include susceptibility to gaming, data sparsity, and difficulties translating the evidence into specific types of impact. Despite these limitations, altmetrics have been widely adopted by publishers, apparently to give authors, editors and readers insights into the level of interest in recently published articles. This article summarises evidence for and against extending the adoption of altmetrics to research evaluations. It argues that whilst systematicallygathered altmetrics are inappropriate for important formal research evaluations, they can play a role in some other contexts. They can be informative when evaluating research units that rarely produce journal articles, when seeking to identify evidence of novel types of impact during institutional or other self-evaluations, and when selected by individuals or groups to support narrative-based non-academic claims. In addition, Mendeley reader counts are uniquely valuable as early (mainly) scholarly impact indicators to replace citations when gaming is not possible and early impact evidence is needed. Organisations using alternative indicators need recruit or develop in-house expertise to ensure that they are not misused, however

Publishing patterns within the UK accounting and finance academic community

This study reports on publishing patterns in the UK and Irish accounting and finance academic community for the 2-year period 1998-1999 using the data contained in the BAR Research Register. It is found that the community has been growing modestly since 1991, with a doubling in the number of PhD-qualified staff (to 30%) and a reduction in the number with a professional qualification (from 81 to 58%). Nearly half of all outputs appear in other than academic journals. The mean number of publications is 1.76 per capita, with significantly more staff active in publishing than in 1991 (44% compared to 35%). However, only 17% publish in a subset of 60 'top' journals. Just over half of all articles are published in the core discipline journals, the rest appearing mainly in management, economics, sociology, education and IT journals. This may indicate a growing maturity in the disciplines, whereby applied research findings are flowing back into related foundation and business disciplines. Nearly two-thirds of academic articles are co-authored, with 25% of contributions coming from outside the community, indicating an openness to interdisciplinary collaboration, collaboration with overseas academics and collaboration with individuals in practice. The findings of this study will be of assistance to those making career decisions (either their own career or decisions involving other people's careers). They also raise awareness of the way in which the accounting and finance disciplines are developing

Understanding information needs of Australian business organisations

Over the past decade, universities have used repositories as channels to create access to research outputs. Increasingly government and universities are seeking to optimise the impact of their research, particularly to improve public policy. This study looks at the impact of access to research from the perspective of business associations and researchers. It finds that business organisations value trusted timely, relevant research. Accessibility and peer-reviewed research outputs are highly valued but little used. Barriers to use of the research include availability (material not openly accessible), discoverability (ranking on search engines) and knowledge by trusted mediators and connectivity (presentation as part of a cohort of scholarly knowledge). Barriers for researchers include lack of rewards and recognition for research outputs focused on these organisations. The theories used in the study include triple helix, Kautto-Koivula and Huhtaniemi’s model for knowledge and competence management and actor network theory. The study concludes that significant work is required to improve the accessibility and discoverability of research. In particular, the search paradigm is insufficient to provide optimal awareness of and impact of research.Australian Library and Information Associatio

Utilising content marketing metrics and social networks for academic visibility

There are numerous assumptions on research evaluation in terms of quality and relevance of academic contributions. Researchers are becoming increasingly acquainted with bibliometric indicators, including; citation analysis, impact factor, h-index, webometrics and academic social networking sites. In this light, this chapter presents a review of these concepts as it considers relevant theoretical underpinnings that are related to the content marketing of scholars. Therefore, this contribution critically evaluates previous papers that revolve on the subject of academic reputation as it deliberates on the individual researchers’ personal branding. It also explains how metrics are currently being used to rank the academic standing of journals as well as higher educational institutions. In a nutshell, this chapter implies that the scholarly impact depends on a number of factors including accessibility of publications, peer review of academic work as well as social networking among scholars.peer-reviewe

Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater: The Undesirable Effects of National Research Assessment Exercises on Research

The evaluation of the quality of research at a national level has become increasingly common. The UK has been at the forefront of this trend having undertaken many assessments since 1986, the latest being the “Research Excellence Framework” in 2014. The argument of this paper is that, whatever the intended results in terms of evaluating and improving research, there have been many, presumably unintended, results that are highly undesirable for research and the university community more generally. We situate our analysis using Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction and then focus on the peculiarities of the 2008 RAE and the 2014 REF the rules of which allowed for, and indeed encouraged, significant game-playing on the part of striving universities. We conclude with practical recommendations to maintain the general intention of research assessment without the undesirable side-effects