Intended for healthcare professionals

Letters Stern report

Metrics should be a complement in research, not a substitute for human judgment

BMJ 2016; 354 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4929 (Published 14 September 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;354:i4929
  1. Tom J Reller, communications
  1. Elsevier, 1600 John F Kennedy Blvd #1800, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA
  1. t.reller{at}elsevier.com

Elsevier would like to ensure that a reported statement from James Wilsdon, of Sheffield University,1 isn’t misinterpreted to suggest that we believe in a metrics-only approach. The statement was reported as follows: “Towards the end of last year both government and commercial players like Elsevier were pushing for a metrics based Research Excellence Framework. Lord Stern deserves credit for holding out against such pressures.”

We think that it’s important for stakeholders to know that, while Elsevier endorses the use of metrics in all decision making processes including the Research Excellence Framework, we also believe that metrics alone will never convey the complete picture of research quality. Metrics should always be used as a complement to the qualitative approaches of peer review, expert opinion, and narrative, and not as a substitute for human judgment.

Elsevier’s response to the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s call for evidence can be read in its entirety at: https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/response-to-hefces.

Also, we wrote further about the use of metrics in research assessment at Elsevier Connect, which can be found here: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/impact-of-science-the-need-to-measure.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Elsevier is an analytics provider to the Research Excellence Framework.

References

Log in

Log in through your institution

Subscribe

* For online subscription