Policies and documents
Responsible Metrics Statement
York St John University is committed to the fair, transparent, and inclusive use of research metrics.
York St John University is committed to the responsible and informed use of research metrics.
While metrics can provide valuable insights, they must be applied with transparency, care, and in conjunction with expert judgement. Metrics should never be used as standalone indicators of research quality but rather as complementary tools that provide context to qualitative assessments.
This statement is underpinned by internationally recognised frameworks for responsible research assessment, including the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto, and The Metric Tide report. In particular, we draw on the principles of The Metric Tide, which advocate for transparency, contextualisation, and the responsible use of quantitative indicators in evaluating research.
Use of metrics
Metrics may be used to inform:
- Research assessment (for example, REF environment statements, benchmarking).
- Staff evaluation (for example, promotion, appraisal).
- Strategic planning and institutional reporting.
However, metrics will never be used in isolation for decisions related to recruitment, promotion, or funding.
In all cases, metrics must be:
- Transparent: Clear in origin, calculation, and limitations
- Contextualised: Interpreted within disciplinary and career norms
- Complementary: Used alongside, not in place of, peer review
- Developmental: Used to support learning and improvement
Types of research metrics
Metrics should support, not replace, expert judgement. When used, they must be applied transparently and in context. The University recognises five broad categories:
- Examples: citation counts, field-normalised impact, usage statistics
- Use: indicates scholarly reach of outputs
- Caution: varies by discipline and time; not standalone indicators
- Examples: h-index, citation counts, altmetrics
- Use: provides partial insights into researcher profiles
- Caution: may disadvantage early-career researchers or interdisciplinary work
- Examples: journal Impact Factor, SCImago Journal Rank
- Use: contextualises journal reach
- Caution: not proxies for article or researcher quality (see DORA for further information)
- Examples: field-weighted citation impact, collaboration indices, research income
- Use: identifies trends and strengths
- Caution: requires contextualisation
- Examples: case studies, policy influence, open research contributions
- Use: captures societal impact and research culture
- Caution: should meet standards of evidence and peer review
Further information
This statement complements the following national and international initiatives:
- ‘San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment’ (no date) DORA. Available at: https://sfdora.org/read/.
- Hicks, D., et al. (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520, 429–431. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.
- Wilsdon, J., et al. (2015) The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20210823214948/https:/re.ukri.org/sector-guidance/publications/metric-tide/.
- UUK (2022) The UK Forum for Responsible Research Metrics, Universities UK. Available at: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/topics/research-and-innovation/uk-forum-responsible-research-metrics.
