Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based

[David Goodman]

Writing from a perspective where the RAE does not have
any personal practical significance, I comment that such
 measures have a remarkable tendency to
correlate with the preconceived rankings.

For an area  somewhat relevant to this list,
journal selection and deselection, there are
numerous factors besides IF. Librarians select among
 them to pretend to the faculty that objective decisions are
being made. I have long experience in this art, and
will be glad to demonstrate.

Consider the importance of RAE to a department and an
university. How could anyone in the UK could be
both sufficently competent and  unbiased
to decide on the rankings of UK departments? Perhaps they
should judge Japanese departments and vice versa.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
and formerly
Princeton University Library

dgoodman at liu.edu
dgoodman at princeton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Rowlands <ir at SOI.CITY.AC.UK>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based
To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> Hi Peter
>
> No, I disagree.  This is where the discussion starts.  In the world of
> evidence-based policy, metricians hold the key.  Metrics form
> targets, targets
> shape behaviour, behaviour determines outcomes.  The metrics -
> outcomesrelationship needs to be explored.  Whether we like it or
> not, this is our
> responsibility, we are joined at the hip with the social
> responsibilities that
> come with judging others.
>
> Ian
>
> Quoting Peter Ingwersen <PI at DB.DK>:
>
> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> > Dear Loet and Stevan et al. - I think we should stop this
> discussion now,
> > prior to too many mails arriving into our boxes for no use.
> Please convey
> > your discussion between you two. Loet is right in that the entire
> issue is
> > political AND that the metrics we possess are not strong enough to
> > substitute human assessemnts, e.g., of how the research is actually
> > performed in the labs (good Lab. practice, etc.). Stevan might
> like the
> > metrics, including fancy inlink analyses, not mentioned thus far,
> but:> actually, the correlations referred to (published) cover only
> the top-ranked
> > (and low-ranked) institutions in the RAE rankings - not really
> > distinguishing between the large portion of mid-positioned research
> > institutions in the UK. Hence, all this talk of substitution by
> metrics is
> > beneficial/fair to some - not to the entire body of research. My
> best> regards - Peter Ingwersen
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Loet Leydesdorff
> > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> > Sent: 28-03-06 20:56
> > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based
> >
> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> > > Bref: Scrapping the non-metric white-elephant in favour of
> > > existing metrics is the policy part; improving on existing
> > > metrics is the research part.
> >
> > Thus, you wish to make the RAE completely technocratic, while we
> know> that
> > we don't have reliable models for giving this strong type of policy
> > advice.
> > If I translate this for the Netherlands--having a dual system
> relying> more
> > on peer review than the UK--I can see the advantages, but also the
> > disadvantages. For one, it might give my unit more money!
> >
> > With best wishes,
> >
> >
> > Loet
> > ________________________________
> > Loet Leydesdorff
> > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
> > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
> > Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681;
> > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> >
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>