Peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics - Do we need them all?

This panel will present views and critical reflections on peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics against the background of the latest developments and critique of the scientific system (e.g., replication crisis, DORA, open science, data manipulation). Peer review is the oldest form of monitoring the scientific process and research outcomes and is sometimes considered as the gold standard for evaluating quality. However, it also has its drawbacks; therefore, new forms of peer review are being explored. Bibliometrics, comparative statistics based on publication and citation counts, was introduced as a more objective evaluation method, which is applicable on meso and macro levels of research producing units but is not without problems either. Citation counts as a proxy of quality; the impact factor and the h-index are some of the most controversial subjects of research evaluation today. The newest addition to the evaluation toolbox are altmetrics, impact measures based mainly on social media activity. Altmetrics have pros and cons as well. None of the measuring devices is perfect, and rather than replacing they complement each other. By drawing on indicators from all three aspects of research evaluation, negative and adverse effects are limited.