Welcome to this Special Issue of EuroScientist on: Research evaluation!

The very existence of scientific career progression hinges on researchers being judged by their peers as being eligible for further career advancement and worthy recipient of grant funding.

Yet, technology is bringing disruption in what was until now a well-oiled peer-review system.

The upcoming generation of scientists is likely to be evaluated through an evolved versions of peer-review. New means of measuring their worth have a much higher level of granularity than the old-fashioned impact factor approach.

Thus, scientists are entering a period of increased uncertainty, when it comes to the evaluation of their abilities, until new evaluation methods become validated and widely accepted by the community.

This interim period could bring some opportunities. It opens the door to testing alternative metrics, so-called altmetrics, for example. And it offers opportunities for real-time evaluation of researcher’s latest work, thanks to the instant online availability of papers, feedback from the community and from reviewers as well as publishers.

Ironically, what has now become the experimental field of evaluation may have the unforeseen consequence of speeding the research process itself because technology helps cut down delays in the evaluation process.

Enjoy this special issue, and don’t forget to provide feedback to us by writing to editor@euroscientist.com or by commenting in the dialogue boxes at the bottom of each article.

Editorial

Alternatives to peer review

See also our previous coverage on related topic

New methods of evaluating research

Featured image credit: © style-photography.de - Fotolia.com

You like what you read EuroScientist?

Why not help us bring more of these issues to you.

It is simple, all you have to do is follow this link, and donate to support us!