Abstract
Several academic institutions in the Netherlands and elsewhere develop indices to rank their scientists which will impact evaluation and steering of research. An important part of these indices is based on bibliometric indices. The development of such ranking indices is often seen as the prerogative of management and is kept out of the process where scientific instruments should be presented and evaluated: peer-reviewed journals. In this case the index of the author’s institution is criticised both for the evasion of discussion as for the lack of compensation for bias related to discipline, gender and personal history. Furthermore, it is argued that the ranking based on ‘numbers’ rather than scientific contributions is detrimental to the motivation of the staff suffering under the several modi of bias, is counterproductive for interdisciplinary achievements and discourages young researchers in less scoring disciplines to find their way in the medical academic arena. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:319-22).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Opthof T, Wilde AA. The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists: The case of Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. Neth Heart J. 2009;17:145-54.
Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569-72.
Van Kammen J, van Lier RAW, Gunning-Schepers LJ. Assessing scientific quality in a multidisciplinary academic medical centre. Neth Heart J. 2009;17:500.
Opthof T. Wilde AA. Assessment of scientific quality is complicated. Neth Heart J. 2009;17:501-2
Anonymous. Advice of the Research Council on the evaluation of the AMC research 2008. Internal report.
European Commission ISBN 92-79-01566-4. She figures: Women and Science, statistics and indicators, 2009.
Symonds MR, Gemmell NJ, Braisher TL, Gorringe KL, Elgar MA. Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS One. 2006;1:e127.
Spaan JA. Biomedical Engineering and bibliometric indices for scientific quality. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2009;47:1219-20.
Simons K. The misused impact factor. Science. 2008;322:165.
Laloë F, Mosseri R. Bibliometric evaluation of individual researchers: Not even right ... not even wrong. Europhysics News. 2009;40:27-9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spaan, J.A.E. Arrogance and ignorance in assessing scientific quality in a multidisciplinary academic medical centre. NHJL 18, 319–322 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03091783
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03091783