No CrossRef data available.
Quality Assessment of Medical Research and Education
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2009
Abstract
Different aspects of the process of evaluating research and education are discussed, using the discipline of medicine as a model. The focus is primarily on potential problems in the design of an evaluation. The most important aspects of an assessment are: to create confidence in the evaluation among scientists and/or teachers who are being assessed before beginning; to find experts for whom the scientists and/or teachers have professional respect; to choose assessment methods in relation to the focus, level, and objectives of the evaluation; and to make the report of the evaluation's findings short and explicit.
- Type
- General Essays
- Information
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Summer 1992 , pp. 479 - 489
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992
References
REFERENCES
1.Anderson, A.No citation analyses please, we're British. Science, 1991, 252, 639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Ceci, S. J., & Peters, D. P.Peer review: A study of reliability. Change, 1982, 44–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Cole, J. R., & Cole, S.Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the Science Citation Index. American Sociologist, 1971, 6, 23–29.Google Scholar
4.Cole, S., Cole, J. R., & Simon, G. A.Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 1981, 214, 881–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Garfield, E.Citation analyses as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 1972, 178, 471–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Garfield, E.The impact of citation counts. Times Higher Education, 1988 (suppl. 15), 12.Google Scholar
7.Hansen, H. F.Effective research -A project concerning the development of evaluation methodology. In Nordic Science Policy Council. Evaluation of research. Nordic experiences. FPR-publication, 1986, 5, 99–116.Google Scholar
8.Harnad, S. (ed.). Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific quality control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
9.Harnad, S.Rational disagreement in peer review. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 1985, 10, 55–62.Google Scholar
10.King, J.A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 1987, 13, 261–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Luukkonen-Gronow, T.Bibliometrics as a tool for evaluation. In Evaluation of research. Nordic experiences. Nordic Science Policy Council. FPR-publication, 1986, 5, 127–52.Google Scholar
12.MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R.The negational reference or the art of dissembling. Social Studies Science, 1984, 14, 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R.Quantitative measures of communication of science: A study of the formal level. Social Studies Science, 1986, 16, 151–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Medical Research Council. Corporate strategy 1989. London: Medical Research Council, 1989.Google Scholar
16.Montgomery, H., & Hemlin, S.Conceptions of scientific quality. In Evaluation of research. Nordic experiences. Nordic Science Policy Council. FPR-publication, 1986, 5, 117–26.Google Scholar
17.Niiniluoto, I.Peer review: Problems and prospects. In Evaluation of research. Nordic experiences. Nordic Science Policy Council. FPR-publication, 1986, 5, 7–29.Google Scholar
18.Persson, O.Bibliographies and bibliometrics-Some problems of measurement. In Evaluation of research. Nordic experiences. Nordic Science Policy Council. FPR-publication, 1986, 5, 186–202.Google Scholar
20.Premfors, R. Evaluating basic units in higher education. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, GSHR Report no. 33, 1985.Google Scholar