Fair assessment of the merits of psychiatric research.
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.


OBJECTIVE
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.


METHODS
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.
Lewison
Grant
G
Evaluametrics Ltd., Kew, Richmond, Surrey and School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College London, London SE5 8AF, UK.
Thornicroft
Graham
G
Szmukler
George
G
Tansella
Michele
M
D015706:Bibliometrics; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000145:classification; D011786:Quality Control