# Like-for-like bibliometric substitutes for peer review: advantages and limits of indicators calculated from the ep index

## TL;DR

This study explores using bibliometric indicators, specifically the ep index and top citation percentiles, as substitutes for peer review in research assessment, analyzing their advantages and limitations across different research fields.

## Contribution

It introduces a method to approximate peer review outcomes using bibliometric indicators based on the REF results, highlighting potential for simplified research evaluation.

## Key findings

- The ep index can predict the likelihood of papers reaching top citation percentiles.
- Substitution of bibliometric indicators for peer review is feasible in many research areas.
- Deviations from expected ratios are linked to evaluation procedures and research field characteristics.

## Abstract

The use of bibliometric indicators would simplify research assessments. The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a peer review assessment of UK universities, whose results can be taken as benchmarks for bibliometric indicators. In this study we use the REF results to investigate whether the ep index and a top percentile of most cited papers could substitute for peer review. The probability that a random university's paper reaches a certain top percentile in the global distribution of papers is a power of the ep index, which can be calculated from the citation-based distribution of university's papers in global top percentiles. Making use of the ep index in each university and research area, we calculated the ratios between the percentage of 4-star-rated outputs in REF and the percentages of papers in global top percentiles. Then, we fixed the assessment percentile so that the mean ratio between these two indicators across universities is 1.0. This method was applied to four units of assessment in REF: Chemistry, Economics & Econometrics joined to Business & Management Studies, and Physics. Some relevant deviations from the 1.0 ratio could be explained by the evaluation procedure in REF or by the characteristics of the research field; other deviations need specific studies by experts in the research area. The present results indicate that in many research areas the substitution of a top percentile indicator for peer review is possible. However, this substitution cannot be made straightforwardly; more research is needed to establish the conditions of the bibliometric assessment.

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/1903.11119