the association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of australian researchers in six fields of public health4引证指标之间的关系和同行排名研究的影响,澳大利亚研究人员在六个领域的公共卫生.pdf

The Association between Four Citation Metrics and Peer Rankings of Research Influence of Australian Researchers in Six Fields of Public Health 1,2 1 1 3 Gemma Elizabeth Derrick *, Abby Haynes , Simon Chapman , Wayne D. Hall 1 Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2 Instituto de Politcas y Bienes Publicos, Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Consejo Superior Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid, Spain, 3 Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Abstract Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers’ influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field