Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Downloads 2314
Views 9
Full text requests 1
Collected by 1
Followed by 2
Following... 7

Total impact ?

    Send a

    Kelli has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 12

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user Kelli Barr

    Junior professional

    Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX
    Center for the Study of Interdisicplinarity, University of North Texas, Denton, TX
    Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL

    Research Impact: We Need Negative Metrics Too

    Export to Mendeley

    Research metrics are ambiguous — a paper may be cited for positive or negative reasons. Funding agencies and universities focus on positive impact in evaluating research, which increasingly includes alternative metrics ('altmetrics'). We think that researchers can generate a more complete account of their impact by including seemingly negative indicators — such as confrontations with important people or legal action — as well as those that seem positive. To explore this idea, we at the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity discussed ways to evaluate the impact of our research activities. Our thinking began with common quantitative indicators of scholarly impact (such as citation and publication counts) and expanded to other possible indicators, including negative ones (such as provoking angry letters from influential people). In this correspondence, we present a table of possible indicators for scholarly impact as a jumping-off point for expanding our thinking regarding what counts as scholarly impact.

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : Research Impact: We Need Negative Metrics Too
    Author(s) : J. Britt Holbrook, Kelli Barr, Keith Brown
    Abstract : Research metrics are ambiguous — a paper may be cited for positive or negative reasons. Funding agencies and universities focus on positive impact in evaluating research, which increasingly includes alternative metrics ('altmetrics'). We think that researchers can generate a more complete account of their impact by including seemingly negative indicators — such as confrontations with important people or legal action — as well as those that seem positive. To explore this idea, we at the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity discussed ways to evaluate the impact of our research activities. Our thinking began with common quantitative indicators of scholarly impact (such as citation and publication counts) and expanded to other possible indicators, including negative ones (such as provoking angry letters from influential people). In this correspondence, we present a table of possible indicators for scholarly impact as a jumping-off point for expanding our thinking regarding what counts as scholarly impact.
    Keywords : Research Evaluation; Research Impact; Interdisciplinarity; Philosophy

    Subject : unspecified
    Area : Computer Science
    Language : English
    Year : 2013

    Affiliations Center for the Study of Interdisicplinarity, University of North Texas, Denton, TX
    Journal : Nature
    Volume : 497
    Publisher : Nature Publishing Group
    Pages : 439
    Url : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497439a.html
    Doi : 10.1038/497439a

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    Kelli's Peer Evaluation activity

    Downloads 2314
    Views 9
    Full text requests 1
    Collected by 1
    • Kelli Barr, Junior professional, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
    Followed by 2
    • Aalam Wassef, Publisher, Founder of Peer Evaluation, Galerie Conradi.
    • Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Independent researcher, Las Vegas Naveda, Trivedi Global Inc., Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.
    Following... 7
    • J. Britt Holbrook, Other, Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Philosophy of/as Interdisciplinarity Network, Public Philosophy Network.
    • Robert Frodeman, Professor, Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton.
    • Adam Briggle, Professor, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas.
    • Heather Piwowar, Post Doctorate, DataONE at NESCent, Dryad data repository, University of British Columbia.
    • Jason Priem, Student, Ph.D. Level, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
    • Gloria Origgi, Research Fellow, CNRS, Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris.
    • Cameron Neylon, Senior Principal Research Fellow, STFC.

    Kelli has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 12
    • Kelli Barr, Junior professional, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.