1/1
A new way to measure research/publication impact in Indonesian academic system
Version 2 2017-09-29, 22:36
Version 1 2017-09-29, 22:08
dataset
posted on 2017-09-29, 22:36 authored by Dasapta Erwin IrawanDasapta Erwin IrawanI drew this sketch-note during a meeting about measuring research/publication impact. This sketch-note clearly describe my thought about research process and how we should look at research output beyond the far-known metrics we are forced to use today.
My point is we already have quality controls (QC) starting from grant selection to critical assessment from readers. But still, we lay ourselves to widely used metrics that have been slowly fade away in the academic perspective.
My second point is that indexing is far from measuring the research process. It only sets journal/conference standards not the whole research.
The third point is by trusting those metrics and those alone as the objective clearly underestimates our own scientific background and logic that we have built throughout years of school era.
We should measure the impact of a research or paper using "open principles" through out its workflow, instead of only looking at the final product:
(1) is it original on certain level, is the data and analysis scientifically valid,
(2) is it reproducible and people can re-do the analysis, is it in shareable online in "ready to use" formats, does it provide data - code - method online,
(3) does it have value to community? Have the author engaged and fully interact with the community?
I hope you get my three points. If you still choose to use the metrics, would it be "the most naive" way to measure impact? I will share the slides and eventually the full paper later on.
My point is we already have quality controls (QC) starting from grant selection to critical assessment from readers. But still, we lay ourselves to widely used metrics that have been slowly fade away in the academic perspective.
My second point is that indexing is far from measuring the research process. It only sets journal/conference standards not the whole research.
The third point is by trusting those metrics and those alone as the objective clearly underestimates our own scientific background and logic that we have built throughout years of school era.
We should measure the impact of a research or paper using "open principles" through out its workflow, instead of only looking at the final product:
(1) is it original on certain level, is the data and analysis scientifically valid,
(2) is it reproducible and people can re-do the analysis, is it in shareable online in "ready to use" formats, does it provide data - code - method online,
(3) does it have value to community? Have the author engaged and fully interact with the community?
I hope you get my three points. If you still choose to use the metrics, would it be "the most naive" way to measure impact? I will share the slides and eventually the full paper later on.
