Leiden Manifesto aligns with conclusions of the just released independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management, The Metric Tide, commissioned by HEFCE in the UK.
The concluding section, entitled Responsible Metrics states:
Drawing on discussions over RRI, we propose the notion of responsible metrics as a way of framing appropriate uses of quantitative indicators in the governance, management and assessment of research. The notion of responsible metrics distils the essence of other important contributions to these debates, including the Leiden Manifesto and DORA. Responsible metrics can be understood in terms of a number of dimensions:
• Robustness: basing metrics on the best possible data in terms of accuracy and scope;
• Humility: recognising that quantitative evaluation should support – but not supplant – qualitative, expert assessment;
• Transparency: keeping data collection and analytical processes open and transparent, so that those being evaluated can test and verify the results;
• Diversity: accounting for variation by field, and using a range of indicators to reflect and support a plurality of research and researcher career paths across the system;
• Reflexivity: recognising and anticipating the systemic and potential effects of indicators, and updating them in response.
As stated in the Leiden Manifesto “research metrics can provide crucial information that would be difficult to gather or understand by means of individual expertise. But this quantitative information must not be allowed to morph from an instrument into the goal.” (pp. 134-135)
Check out their website at: https://responsiblemetrics.org
The lost paradise, the original sin, and the Dodo bird: a scientometrics Sapere Aude manifesto as a reply to the Leiden manifesto on scientometrics
Daniel David, Petre Frangopol
Scientometrics , Jully 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1634-2
Given the recent publication of the Leiden manifesto on scientometrics, we wanted to highlight some key aspects related to the field of scientometrics in order to offer a counterbalanced approach by addressing all the Leiden arguments from a different point of view. Although we agree the scientometric data have sometimes been used in inappropriate ways, we think that the problem lies not with the field, but with the incorrect uses of scientometric information. Thus, some of the arguments stated in the Leiden manifesto seem to be more like a straw man strategy because they are formulated as criticism to science evaluation in general rather than to the specific field of scientometrics.