Reframing the Debate on Quality v/s Quantity in Research Assessment

Pal, Jiban K. Reframing the Debate on Quality v/s Quantity in Research Assessment. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 2021, vol. 41, n. 1, pp. 70-71. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of Reframing the Debate on Quality vs Quantity in Research Assessment.pdf]
Preview
 Text
Reframing the Debate on Quality vs Quantity in Research Assessment.pdf
Download (298kB) | Preview

English abstract

The debate on quality versus quantity is still persistent for methodological considerations. These two approaches are highly contrasting in their epistemology and contrary to each other. A single composite indicator that reasonably senses both quality and quantity would be significant toward performance. This paper evaluates the potency of the combined metric for quality assessment of publications (QP) in India’s National Institutional Research Framework (NIRF) exercise in 2020. It also suggests a potential improvement in quality measurement to obtain the rankings more rationally with finer tunings.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Research evaluation; Institutional ranking; Quality assessment; Combined metric; NIRF; India
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information
B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
B. Information use and sociology of information > BF. Information policy
Depositing user: Dr. Jiban K. Pal
Date deposited: 18 Feb 2021 00:19
Last modified: 18 Feb 2021 00:19
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/41802

References

Abramo, G.; Cicero, T. & D’Angelo, C.A. A sensitivity analysis of researchers’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. J. Informetrics, 2012, 6(2), 192-201. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.003.

Mukherjee, B.N. Toward a rapprochement between the two basic paradigms of educational research. Qual. Quant., 1993, 27(4), 383-410. doi: 10.1007/BF01102500.

Nederhof, A.J.; Van Leeuwen, T.N. & Clancy, P. Calibration of bibliometric indicators in space exploration research: A comparison of citation impact measurement of the space and ground-based life and physical sciences, Research Evaluation, 2012, 21(1), 79-85. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvr005.

NIRF-MHRD, Government of India (2017). Methodology for ranking of academic institutions in India: Parameters, combined metric for quality of publications. https://www.nirfindia.org/ (Accessed on 24 October 2020).

Pal, Jiban K. & Sarkar, S. Understanding research productivity in the realm of evaluative scientometrics. Annals. Libr. Inf. Stud., 2020, 67(1), 67-69.

Pinar, M. & Unlu, E. Determinants of quality of research environment: An assessment of the environment submissions in the UK’s research excellence framework in 2014. Research Evaluation, 2020, 29(3), 231-244. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa003.

Pratap, G. Quantity, quality, and consistency as bibliometric indicators (Letter to the editor). J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2014, 65(1), 214. doi 10.1002/asi.23008.

Prathap, G. Quasity, when quantity has a quality all of its own: Toward a theory of performance. Scientometrics, 2011, 88(2), 555-562. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0401-2.

Sahel, J.A. Quality versus quantity: Assessing individual research performance. Sci. Transl. Med., 2011, 3, 84cm13. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249

Vinkler, P. Quantity and impact through a single indicator. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2013, 64(5), 1084-1085. doi: 10.1002/asi.22833.

Wang, J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 2013, 94(3), 851-872. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS