Universiteit Antwerpen Conference "New Frontiers in Evaluation", Vienna, April 24th-25th 2006. Reliability and Comparability of Peer Review Results Nadine

Conference "New Frontiers in Evaluation", Vienna, April 24th-25th 2006.

UniversiteitAntwerpen

Reliability and Comparability of Peer Review Results

Nadine Rons, Coordinator of Research Evaluations & Policy Studies

Research & Development Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Eric Spruyt, Head of the Research Administration Department

Universiteit Antwerpen

Reliability and Comparability of Peer Review ResultsNadine Rons (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) & Eric Spruyt (Universiteit Antwerpen) | pag. 2


“Three cheers for peers”

‘Three cheers for peers’, Editorial, Nature 439, 118 (12 January 2006).

• "Thanks are due to researchers who act as referees, as editors resolve their often contradictory advice."

• "Only in a minority of cases does every referee agree ..."



Presentation plan

I. Validation of resultsReliability & comparability

II. Material investigated'Ex post' peer review + citation analysis of teams

III. Investigation of resultsReliability: inter-peer agreement & different rating habits

Comparability: related concepts & intrinsic characteristics

IV. ConclusionsAimed at improved results, a better understanding, choosing the

right method



I. Validation of results

1. ReliabilityPeer review: principal method to evaluate research quality.

BUT: various kinds of bias & different rating habits.

& Not always feasible to use measures limiting their influence. Possible to measure reliability ?

2. Comparability H F Moed (2005), 'Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation', chapter

18: 'Peer Review and the Validity of Citation Analysis', Springer.

More reliable results better correlations with other outcomes?

Correlations often relatively weak & depending on the discipline. Can this be explained? (crucial for further acceptance!)



II. Material investigated (Peer review)

1. Peer review

– Shared principles for the panel-evaluations of teams per discipline:• Expertise-based• International level• Uniform treatment• Coherence of results• Multi-criteria approach• Pertinent advice

– Exceptions:• Different experts for each team (1 discipline at VUB).• Specific methodology using different indicators (1 discipline at UA).



II. Material investigated (Peer review @ VUB)

– VUB-indicators: Standard procedure 'VUB-Richtstramien voor de Disciplinegewijze

Onderzoeksevaluaties', VUB Research Council (2001).

• Scientific merit of the research / uniqueness of the research• Research approach / plan / focus / coordination• Innovation• Quality of the research team• Probability that the research objectives will be achieved• Research productivity• Potential impact on further research and on the development of applications• Potential impact for transition to or utility for the community• Dominant character of the research (fundamental / applied / policy oriented)• Overall research evaluation



II. Material investigated (Peer review @ UA)

– UA-indicators: 'Protocol 1998' for the Assessment of Research Quality, Association of Universities of

the Netherlands (VSNU, 1998).

• Academic quality• Academic productivity• Scientific relevance• Academic perspective

Exception (1 discipline, "partial" indicators):• Publications• Projects• Conference participations• Other• Globally



II. Material investigated (Citation analysis)

2. Citation analysis 'New Bibliometric Tools for the Assessment of National Research Performance:

Database Description, Overview of Indicators and First Apllications', H F Moed et al., Scientometrics 33 (1995).

– Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University.

– Thomson ISI citation indexes, corresponding period, same teams.

– Indicators include:• CPP/JCSm: citations / publication with respect to expectations for the

journals• CPP/FCSm: citations / publication with respect to expectations for the field• JCSm/FCSm: journal citation score with respect to expectations for the field



III. Investigation of results (Overview)

1. Reliabilitya. Inter-peer agreement:

Three groups of evaluations according to measured level of agreement.

b. Rating habits:Panel-procedures vs. exception with different experts for each team.

Influence on results & on correlations between peer review indicators investigated.

2. Comparabilitya. Related concepts:

'Global' vs. 'partial' indicators & variation with discipline.

b. Intrinsic characteristics of methods:Contributions to ratings counted differently & scale effects.

Influence on comparability investigated.



III. Investigation of results (1. Reliability, a. Inter-peer agreement)

1. Reliability

1. a. Inter-peer agreement

In panels: different opinions different positions of teams. Level of inter-peer agreement measured by correlations

between the ratings from different peers.

3 groups compared: panels with high, intermediate and low inter-peer agreement.



III. Investigation of results (1. Reliability, a. Inter-peer agreement)

– Influence on results:Results compared to citation analysis: Better inter-peer agreement = higher number of significant

correlations,

BUT: only at the higher aggregation level of the 3 groups. Other mechanisms have a stronger impact on correlations.

– Influence on correlations between peer review indicators:Significant correlations for each pair of peer review indicators, for

each of the 3 groups (also for indiviual disciplines). Correlations between peer review indicators are relatively robust

for variations in inter-peer agreement.



III. Investigation of results (1. Reliability, b. Rating habits)

1.b. Rating habits

Opinions ratings: according to own habits, reference levels in other evaluations, scores given to other files, known use of scores, ...

Two cases compared:• Exception with different experts for each team scores not

necessarily in line with opinions.• Standard panel-evaluations uniform reference level.



III. Investigation of results (1. Reliability, b. Rating habits)

– Influence on results:Results compared to citation analysis:• Panel-evaluations: significant correlations for all peer review

indicators with some or all citation analysis indicators (& vice versa). • Different experts: significant correlation for only 1 pair of indicators. Rating habits can influence results significantly.

– Influence on correlations between peer review indicators:• Panel-evaluations: significant correlations for all pairs of indicators. • Different experts: significant correlations for only 8% of the pairs. Low observed correlations between indicators (expected to be

correlated) can indicate diverging rating habits.



III. Investigation of results (2. Comparability, a. Related concepts)

2. Comparability

2.a. Related concepts

– Partial indicators (publications, projects, conferences, ...): no significant correlations between peer review indicators, in contrast to global indicators (scientific merit, productivity, relevance, ...).

Performances in different activities are not necessarily correlated.

– Correlations of peer review with citation analysis indicators: the pairs correlating best strongly vary with discipline.

An indicator may not represent a same concept for all subject areas.

Always use more than one indicator!



III. Investigation of results (2. Comparability, b. Intrinsic characteristics)

2.b. Intrinsic characteristics

– Contributions to ratings: Different in the minds of peers (pro & contra) and in citation analysis

(positive counts).

– Scale effects:Minimum & maximum limits & their position with respect to the mean

value.




• Peer rating frequency distribution:

– Peer ratings: pro & contra, also elements counted 'negatively'.

– Scale: minimum & maximum limit.

Relative frequency distribution of peer results

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

LOW

(1)

LOW

(2)

FAIR

(3)

FAIR

(4)

AVERAGE

(5)

AVERAGE

(6)

GOOD (7)

GOOD (8)

HIGH (9

)

HIGH (1

0)

Peer results

Perc

en

tag

e o

f th

e n

um

ber

of

team

s (5

8) Scientific merit of the research —

Uniqueness of the research

Research approach / plan / focus /co-ordination

Innovation

Quality of the research team

Probability that the researchobjectives will be achieved

Research productivity

Potential impact on furtherresearch and on thedevelopment of applicationsPotential for transition to or utilityfor the community

Overall research evaluation




• Citation impact frequency distribution:

– Citation impact: only positive counts, strong influence of highly cited articles.

– Scale: minimum limit closer to mean & no maximum limit.

Relative frequency distribution of citation impactAll teams in the pure ISI analysis

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0,1 0,4 0,7 1 1,3 1,6 1,9 2,2 2,5 2,8 3,1

Indicator value

Perc

en

tag

e o

f th

e n

um

ber

of

team

s (6

0)

CPP/JCSm

CPP/FCSm




Good correlations only when effects of intrinsic characteristics can be filtered out.

Scientific relevance vs. Field citation impactHigh & intermediate inter-peer agreement group

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Peer review "Scientific relevance" score

Field

cit

ati

on

im

pact

(C

PP/F

CS

m)

?



IV. Conclusions

• Reliability– Peer review results can be influenced considerably by rating habits. – It is recommended to create a uniform reference level (e.g. using

panel procedures) or check for signs of low reliability by analysing the outcomes of the peer evaluation itself.

• Comparability– Besides reliability, comparability of results depends on the nature of

the indicators, on the subject area, on intrinsic characteristics of the methods, ...

– Different methods describe different aspects. The most suitable method should be carefully chosen or developed.

• Evaluations should always be based on a series of indicators, never on one single indicator.

Documents

Universiteit Antwerpen Conference "New Frontiers in Evaluation", Vienna, April 24th-25th 2006. Reliability and Comparability of Peer Review Results Nadine