In defense of quantitative metrics in researcher assessments
John P A Ioannidis1, Zacharias Maniadis2,3
1Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Abstract:
Qualitative assessments of researchers are resource-intensive, untenable in nonmeritocratic settings, and error-prone. Although often derided, quantitative metrics could help improve research practices if they are rigorous, field-adjusted, and centralized.
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Analysis: Overview
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test
Ratio Level of Measurement
A set of data measured using the ratio scale takes care of the ratio problem and provides complete information. Ratio scale data are like interval scale data, except they have a zero point and ratios can be calculated....
Regression Toward the Mean
Measures of Intelligence
Validity refers to how well a test measures what it claims to measure. An intelligence test should accurately assess intelligence rather than another characteristic, like anxiety. Criterion validity is one way to evaluate this;...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...


