跨学科群体研究质量同行评价指标的规范化
Normalization of peer-evaluation measures of group research quality across academic disciplines
摘要：
同行评价为基础的措施，如英国的研究评估工作（RAE），不采用文献计量分析，不能直接利用这种方法来规范跨学科的研究影响。这被视为此类演习的一个明显缺陷，并呼吁找到补救办法。在这里，一个简单的，系统的解决方案，提出了一个数学模型的基础上，研究质量和群体数量之间的关系。该模型既体现了马太效应，也体现了类似于林格曼效应的现象，并揭示了每个学科存在两个临界质量：一个较低的值，低于该值的群体是脆弱的，一个较高的值，超过该值，质量对数量的依赖性降低，当临界质量很大时出现平台。然后，一种可能的归一化过程是将这些平稳段调整到类似的水平。我们研究的后果，这一程序在RAE为众多的学科，相应的一系列的临界质量。
英文摘要：
Peer-evaluation based measures of group research quality such as the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which do not employ bibliometric analyses, cannot directly avail of such methods to normalize research impact across disciplines. This is seen as a conspicuous flaw of such exercises and calls have been made to find a remedy. Here a simple, systematic solution is proposed based upon a mathematical model for the relationship between research quality and group quantity. This model manifests both the Matthew effect and a phenomenon akin to the Ringelmann effect and reveals the existence of two critical masses for each academic discipline: a lower value, below which groups are vulnerable, and an upper value beyond which the dependency of quality on quantity reduces and plateaus appear when the critical masses are large. A possible normalization procedure is then to pitch these plateaus at similar levels. We examine the consequences of this procedure at RAE for a multitude of academic disciplines, corresponding to a range of critical masses.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
