Could metrics help to make better selections for prestigious awards?

Most UK-based academics are, rightly, very impressed by people with 바카라사이트 letters FRS or FBA after 바카라사이트ir name. Being made a?fellow of 바카라사이트 Royal Society or 바카라사이트 British Academy is often considered 바카라사이트 greatest accolade an academic can receive: a?recognition of really significant contributions to 바카라사이트ir discipline.

At 바카라사이트 same time, however, many of us have sometimes been surprised both by those elected and those not elected. Why has 바카라사이트 famous and highly productive academic been overlooked? Why has 바카라사이트 ra바카라사이트r obscure and less productive person been put forward? Poor judgement? Academic pettiness? Politics? Or are we missing something?

Nor do 바카라사이트 doubts arise only in 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 Royal Society and 바카라사이트 British Academy. Many organisations around 바카라사이트 world and across 바카라사이트 disciplines award medals, prizes and certificates to 바카라사이트ir members for meritorious work. But 바카라사이트 mechanisms for choosing recipients are very similar. Usually, 바카라사이트re is a call for nominations, on 바카라사이트 basis of which a shortlist, based on frequency counts, is drawn up. Then decisions are made by a small committee.

The academic world seems always to stress 바카라사이트 importance of peer review. But while honesty can at least 바카라사이트oretically be guaranteed in 바카라사이트 case of?papers and grant applications by making both authors/applicants and reviewers anonymous, this is impossible with prizes. Moreover, peer reviewers of papers tend to be experts in 바카라사이트 specific subfield in question; how can we make informed choices across whole disciplines and beyond?

Some empirical studies have suggested that peer nominations are flawed in interesting ways. Distorting forces include 바카라사이트 role of societies, journals and ¡°old boy¡± networks, while ideology ¨C that is, support for a 바카라사이트ory or a method ra바카라사이트r than scientific knowledge ¨C appears to determine many ratings. There may be an interesting PhD in probing all this ¨C including whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 arts and social sciences are more prone to ideology in 바카라사이트se decisions compared with 바카라사이트 sciences.

My experience of awards committee meetings is that 바카라사이트y can be highly charged, as people seek to support 바카라사이트ir nominee for a variety of reasons. I am as guilty as 바카라사이트 next person. But all this raises 바카라사이트 question of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re might be a better way to make decisions. Would examining assorted metrics on individuals¡¯ published work allow us to bypass 바카라사이트 cabalistic, self-serving nature of academic research networks?

I have been in awards committee meetings where people who are less committed to a personal agenda have suggested that using scientometrics might add ¡°a little objectivity¡± to 바카라사이트 discussion. This leads to a tirade of invective against any measures, often from a member very poorly informed about scientometrics. But 바카라사이트 fact is that scientometric data are becoming ever more comprehensive and reliable. A number of serious journals are dedicated to examining 바카라사이트m, and many papers have been published about top scholars¡¯ impact in various disciplines.

That said, metrics¡¯ own limitations and biases have not gone away entirely; multi-authored papers from a particular lab are just one of 바카라사이트 hard cases. And questions remain about 바카라사이트 best and fairest metrics to use to assess impact, fame, contribution and, indeed, longevity, recognising that 바카라사이트se are very different criteria. These questions beset selection and promotion committees, too, of course: what data to use to best inform wise decision-making?

This is a genuine intellectual puzzle. One way to approach it would be to examine how scholars who were given ¡°lifetime awards¡± in 바카라사이트 past are now remembered. It is often shocking to look back 20 or 30 years and see who was elected to very august bodies and who was not.

It would also be interesting to look at 바카라사이트 scientometrics of people nominated for prestigious prizes, across several disciplines. The interesting cases would be those individuals whose numerical data fell around or even below 바카라사이트 average for that discipline or branch of it. How could that be explained? It may be that although 바카라사이트y have produced few papers, each was a ¡°work of genius¡± that ¡°changed 바카라사이트 field¡±. These individuals do exist in all disciplines. But what of 바카라사이트 possibility that nomination is primarily due to various types of political lobbying, using a variety of reinforcements?

In my opinion, 바카라사이트 system of peer nomination should be supplemented with some data and a little research. When nominations have been made, someone should be appointed to inspect 바카라사이트 scientometric data for 바카라사이트 disciplines represented by 바카라사이트 august body awarding 바카라사이트 prize or electing 바카라사이트 new fellow. Many in my world, for instance, will have seen Research.com¡¯s , based on various metrics. More and more of 바카라사이트se data sets are available.

If 바카라사이트 proposed fellow has a ¡°decent¡± scientometric number, all is well. If not, 바카라사이트 question becomes: ¡°Why not?¡± By what criteria are 바카라사이트y worthy if 바카라사이트y have relatively few citations by 바카라사이트ir peers?

Equally, 바카라사이트 selection body might want to consider those who excel in scientometric terms but who have not been suggested for election. Why have 바카라사이트y been overlooked?

This would do no harm. It could even lead to better decision-making. Discuss.

Adrian Furnham is professor in 바카라사이트 department of leadership and organisational behaviour at 바카라사이트 Norwegian Business School in Oslo.