Re: UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review

From: Jan Velterop <jan_at_biomedcentral.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:38:36 +0000

David,

I'm not sure that 'accuracy' is a relevant notion in relation to Faculty of
1000. The faculty-members offer their opinions on papers they deem of
interest. I quote from a response I sent earlier to one of Stevan Harnad's
contributions to this list: The point of Faculty of 1000 is that an open,
secondary review of published literature by acknowledged leaders in the
field, signed by the reviewer, is seen by increasing numbers of researchers
(measured by the fast-growing usage figures of F1000) as a very meaningful
addition to quantitative data and a way to sort and rank articles in order
of importance. Of course one can subsequently quantify such qualitative
information. But what a known and acknowledged authority thinks of an
article is to many more interesting than what anonymous peer-reviewers
think.

What would you have in mind with regard to accuracy in this regard?

Jan Velterop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Goodman [mailto:dgoodman_at_PRINCETON.EDU]
> Sent: 26 November 2002 19:36
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review
>
>
> Jan, do you have any data demonstrating the accuracy of the
> evaluations in faculty of 1000?
>
> Dr. David Goodman
> Princeton University Library
> and
> Palmer School of Library & Information Science, Long Island University
> dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
Received on Wed Nov 27 2002 - 11:38:36 GMT