Lizzie Gadd describes how seeing research evaluation as a food chain where participants are both the evaluators and the evaluated may help us understand, and solve, some of the problems inherent within . Research evaluation is often cited as the root cause of many problems facing scholarly communication today. The highest profile problem of course, being evaluation-by-journal-brand as the cause of journal-brand-obsession.

A Panel from the 2019 American Library Association Annual Conference in Washington D.C. Monica Ihli, Librarian and Liaison to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Data Science, and Energy Science at the University of Tennessee, summarizes the discussion A speaker panel assembled on Saturday, June 22nd 2019 at the 2019 American Library Association Annual Conference, to address and promote dialogue about the barriers to

Lizzie Gadd encourages us to clarify what, why and how we are measuring before launching into any conversation about responsible metrics. I love the poem, “Five Blind Men and an Elephant” by John Godfrey Saxe.

Rachel Miles, Research Impact Librarian at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, summaries the results from a recent National Survey, giving an insight on how Academic Librarians are using altmetrics in the US. Altmetrics: What is going on? “There is a growing interest in altmetrics.” “Altmetrics have become the newest tool among academic librarians.” “Scholarly communication is

Lizzie Gadd asks whether more could be done to build confidence in the REF peer review process. Introduction Peer review is still held up as the gold standard of research evaluation, and, for most, infinitely preferable to metrics. As such, the REF prides itself on being “a process of expert peer review”, so reads its guiding principle. But the status of peer review has taken rather a battering in recent years.

In this post, Dr Karen Rowlett summarises the recent #LisBib19 conference held on 29th January 2019.

The 2019 lis-bibliometric event is coming up very soon! On Tuesday 29 ^th January 2019, the lis-bibliometric community will gather at the British Library Conference Centre for a jam-packed day of discussions around open metrics and measuring openness.

In this guest post, Jeffrey Demaine explores some tipping points in Open scholarly communication, and what it means in the context of Canada’s research landscape. After more than a decade of incremental progress towards OpenAccess publishing, some national research-funding bodies are ready to engineer disruptive change in the way scholarly communication works.

Lizzie Gadd considers the practical implications of the responsible research evaluation requirement of the Wellcome Trust’s new Open Access Policy. Responsible research evaluation is important. Really important. It’s not only quality-of-life important but life-or-death important to many over-worked, over-evaluated and under-resourced researchers.

In this blog post, Dr Muriel E Swijghuisen Reigersberg (University of Sydney), provides an insight of metrics and research assessment in the Australian research landscape, and how it compares to that of the UK. How are metrics, research assessment, league tables, open access and researcher development interrelated, and how does this vary from one country to the next?

In the light of the Wellcome Trust’s new responsible metrics mandate Lizzie Gadd reports on the findings from the Lis-Bibliometrics 2018 Responsible Metrics State-of-the-Art survey.