How should we rate research?: Pedigree: paternity and progeny

doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7551.1215-a

BMJ 2006;332:1215 (20 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7551.1215-a

Letter

How should we rate research?

Pedigree: paternity and progeny

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—What is meant by quality in health research?^{1 2}For social scientists, the Economic and Social Research Councildetailed multiple problems with American metrics.³ It introducedthe concept of esteem: something dynamic and cumulative (notjust sitting on public committees). Pondering what is admirable,I propose two assessments, both stemming from encountering thehealth scientist I most "esteemed": Peter Medawar.⁴ These samequalities were detectable in other Nobel laureates I met.³ Thereis a pedigree of ideas (seeking the origin in originality) andof influence (shaping the shapers).

What seminal ideas gave paternity to a widely growing familytree of research (such as Medawar's immunology)? This is notthe same as the most cited papers, which may in reality be derivativeand technical. It needs a mapping exercise (sometimes calleddata mining in disciplines such as patents) to identify seminalwork. In many health disciplines these family trees are . . . [Full text of this article]

Woody Caan, professor of public health

Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford CM1 1SQ a.w.caan@anglia.ac.uk