HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by LEWISON, G. Articles by TANSELLA, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by LEWISON, G. Articles by TANSELLA, M.

Fair assessment of the merits of psychiatric research

Evaluametrics Ltd., Kew, Richmond, Surrey and School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College London

GRAHAM THORNICROFT, FRCPsych, FMedSci

Health Services and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, UK

GEORGE SZMUKLER, FRCPsych

Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, UK

MICHELE TANSELLA, MD

Department of Medicine and Public Health, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, University of Verona, Italy

Correspondence: Professor Graham Thornicroft, Health Service and Population Research Department, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK. Tel: ++44(0)20 7848 0735; fax: +44(0)20 7277 1462; email: g.thornicroft{at}iop.kcl.ac.uk

Declaration of interest None.

Background Use of bibliometric assessments of research quality is growing worldwide. So far, a narrow range of metrics have been applied across the whole of biomedical research. Without specific sets of metrics, appropriate to each sub-field of research, biased assessments of research excellence are possible.

Aims To discuss the measures used to evaluate the merits of psychiatric biomedical research, and to propose a new approach using a multidimensional selection of metrics appropriate to each particular field of medical research.

Method Three steps: (a) a definition of scientific ‘domains’, (b) translating these into ‘filters’ to identify publications from bibliometric databases, leading to (c) the creation of standardised measures of merit.

Results We propose using: (a) established metrics such as impact factors and citation indices, (b) new derived measures such as the ‘worldscale’ score, and (c) new indicators based on journal peer esteem, impact on clinical practice, medical education and health policy.

Conclusions No single index or metric can be used as a fair rating to compare nations, universities, research groups, or individual investigators across biomedical science. Rather, we propose using a multidimensional profile composed of a carefully selected array of such metrics.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. H. Coverdale, L. Weiss Roberts, R. Balon, A. K. Louie, and E. V. Beresin Improving the "Impact" of Academic Psychiatry Acad Psychiatry, May 1, 2008; 32(3): 169 - 172. [Full Text] [PDF]