Search

The article explores how the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decide on promoting the value of health. It cites on the issue about a research wherein four drugs could benefit cancer patients which was rejected by NICE. NICE stated that those four drugs are not recommended as treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. On the other hand, it also states that NICE tackles on issues that ranges from medical procedures to public health. Moreover, the moves and decisions of NICE have been adopted by other countries.

The article discusses the results of a poll made by the journal "Nature" on what and how metrics are used in academic institutions. It says that 150 readers responded to the survey and provosts, department heads, and other administrators were also surveyed at nearly 30 research institutions throughout the world. It states that three-quarters of the researchers surveyed said that metrics are used in promotion and hiring decisions, and about 70% mentioned that metrics are applied in performance review and tenure decisions. Moreover, most administrators asserted that they ignore the metrics in promotion, hiring, and tenure decisions. It discusses how metrics are used in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The article reports on the impact of the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to the health-care reform in the U.S. It states that NICE has been regarded as a world leader in comparative-effectiveness studies. Moreover, the best-practice guidelines of NICE from early testing for breast cancer to child nutrition is welcomed by most medical professionals. The author emphasizes that several Americans are dying with cancer and losing their homes due to their inability to afford treatments that are not covered by a health insurance plan.

The article discusses why experts are still needed in various research fields and why metric-based research assessment can be suspicious. The focus of the article is the Great Britain Research Excellence Framework (REF) which will replace the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Topics include how the proposed REF will operate, such as its reliance on metrics to assess research quality, and why publication citations are a poor measure of research quality.

The article discusses the research assessment exercise (RAE) by Great Britain that found academic excellence was widespread. The findings of an audit regarding the research quality of some of Great Britain's elite institutions has caused speculation on how the annual amount of government funding will be distributed. Topics include the British government and funding councils' criteria for appropriating funds, which is based on the best research, and an in-depth examination of the RAE's results.

The article reports on the changing of several controversial proposals that has been made in February by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) as part of a year-long effort to overhaul the agency's peer-view system in the U.S. The author stated that the agency will spend at least $200 million annually over the next five years to foster groundbreaking, investigator-initiated research as part of the Enhancing Peer Review. Moreover, one of the controversial proposals shelved by the agency is the recommendation that all applications will be treated as new, without reviewer access to prior reviews.

The article reports on the revaluation of the new Research Excellence Framework as a replacement to the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) peer-review system in England. The new system will allocate its £1 billion to department mainly on the basis of citations as an attempt by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to make the process fairer and the applications process easier. It stated that the new system might discriminate against researchers who had no time to build up many citations. However, the HEFCE defends the new system and cited that the university sector is broadly behind the proposals.