The starting point of this paper is a desktop research assessment model that does not take properly into account the complexities of research assessment, but rather bases itself on a series of highly simplifying, questionable assumptions related to the availability, validity and evaluative significance of research performance indicators, and to funding policy criteria. The paper presents a critique of this model, and proposes alternative assessment approaches, based on an explicit evaluative framework, focusing on preconditions to performance or communication effectiveness rather than on performance itself, combining metrics and expert knowledge and using metrics primarily to set minimum standards. Giving special attention to early career scientists in emerging research groups, the paper discusses the limits of classical bibliometric indicators and altmetrics.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjective: To examine whether significant differences exist between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed prevalence of atopic disorders in general practice.
Methods: Medline (OvidSP), PubMed Publisher, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were systematically reviewed for articles providing data on the prevalence of asthma, allergic rhinitis and eczema in a GP setting. Studies were only included when they had a cross-sectional or cohort design and included more than 100 children (aged 0-18 years) in a general practice setting.
Purpose: To study the prevalence and interrelationship between asthma, allergic rhinitis and eczema using data obtained from ISAAC questionnaires.
Method: The Medline, Pubmed Publisher, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were systematically reviewed to evaluate epidemiological data of children with atopic disorders. To study these interrelationships, a new approach was used.