The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) has recently emerged as a significant player in the ongoing debate surrounding the use of peer review and evaluative metrics in research assessment. Comprised of leading experts in the field, including Luciana Balboa, Elizabeth Gadd, Eva Mendez, Janne Pölönen, Karen Stroobants, Erzsebet Toth Cithra, and the CoARA Steering Board, this coalition is committed to finding a balance between these two methods of evaluation.
The use of peer review and bibliometrics, or quantitative measures, has long been a topic of discussion in the academic community. While peer review is considered the gold standard for evaluating research, bibliometrics have gained popularity in recent years due to their ability to provide quick and easily measurable data on the impact of research. However, the reliance on bibliometrics has also raised concerns about the potential for oversimplification and misinterpretation of research quality.
CoARA recognizes the value of both peer review and bibliometrics in research assessment and believes that they can be used together responsibly. In a recent statement, the coalition addressed the arguments surrounding this issue and reaffirmed their commitment to finding ways to integrate these methods in a balanced and effective manner.
One of the main concerns raised by critics of bibliometrics is the potential for gaming the system. This refers to the practice of researchers manipulating their publication and citation records in order to improve their bibliometric scores. However, CoARA emphasizes that this issue can be addressed through responsible use of bibliometrics, such as using multiple indicators and taking into account the context of the research.
Another argument against the use of bibliometrics is the potential for bias and discrimination. Some have argued that certain fields, such as the social sciences and humanities, may be disadvantaged by the reliance on quantitative measures. However, CoARA asserts that this can be mitigated by using a diverse set of indicators that take into account the specific characteristics of different disciplines.
On the other hand, some have criticized the use of peer review as being subjective and prone to bias. However, CoARA argues that peer review remains an essential component of research assessment, as it provides a thorough and critical evaluation of the quality and significance of research. The coalition also acknowledges the need for continuous improvement and transparency in the peer review process, and encourages the development of best practices and guidelines for reviewers.
CoARA also recognizes the potential for collaboration between peer review and bibliometrics. By combining the strengths of both methods, a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of research can be achieved. For example, peer review can provide qualitative insights into the significance and originality of research, while bibliometrics can offer quantitative data on the impact and reach of the research.
The coalition also emphasizes the importance of considering the diverse purposes of research assessment. While some may argue that the primary purpose is to determine funding and career opportunities, CoARA believes that research assessment should also serve the broader goal of promoting and advancing knowledge. This requires a balanced approach that takes into account both the quality and impact of research.
In conclusion, the creation of CoARA has sparked a much-needed conversation on the use of peer review and bibliometrics in research assessment. By bringing together experts from various fields, the coalition is committed to finding a responsible and effective way to integrate these methods. As the debate continues, it is important to remember that the ultimate goal of research assessment is to support and promote the advancement of knowledge. With a balanced and collaborative approach, we can achieve this goal and ensure the integrity and quality of research evaluation.
