Fair assessment of the merits of psychiatric research

Abstract

BackgroundUse of bibliometric assessments of research quality is growing worldwide. So far, a narrow range of metrics have been applied across the whole of biomedical research. Without specific sets of metrics, appropriate to each sub-field of research, biased assessments of research excellence are possible.AimsTo discuss the measures used to evaluate the merits of psychiatric biomedical research, and to propose a new approach using a multidimensional selection of metrics appropriate to each particular field of medical research.MethodThree steps: (a) a definition of scientific ‘domains', (b) translating these into ‘filters' to identify publications from bibliometric databases, leading to (c) the creation of standardised measures of merit.ResultsWe propose using: (a) established metrics such as impact factor: and citation indices, (b) new derived measures such as the ‘worldscale’ score, and (c) new indicators based on journal peer esteem, impact on clinical practice, medical education and health policy.ConclusionsNo single index or metric can be used as a fair rating to compare nations, universities, research groups, or individual investigators across biomedical science. Rather, we propose using a multidimensional profile composed of a carefully selected array of such metrics.