Did you use or are you aware of any good quantifiable conceptualizations and breakdowns of the value of research that could be applied to empirical and applied work?
E.g., (probability of being true)*(value if true) seems inadequate, as what is important is the VOI gain the research yielded. And good research generally doesn’t state “we proved X is true with 100% probability” but reports parameters, confidence/credible intervals, etc.
One might consider a VOI model in terms of the ‘increase in value of the optimal funding and policy decisions as informed by the research’. But even if doable, this would ignore impacts of the research on other researchers and less trackable decisionmakers
(Context for asking this: I am considering ways to make The Unjournal’s evaluation metrics more useful.)
Update: OK, I see you have done some more work in this area, reported in this post; I will try to dig into that. However, I’m not sure you expressed a specific ‘value model’ there?
Did you use or are you aware of any good quantifiable conceptualizations and breakdowns of the value of research that could be applied to empirical and applied work?
E.g., (probability of being true)*(value if true) seems inadequate, as what is important is the VOI gain the research yielded. And good research generally doesn’t state “we proved X is true with 100% probability” but reports parameters, confidence/credible intervals, etc.
One might consider a VOI model in terms of the ‘increase in value of the optimal funding and policy decisions as informed by the research’. But even if doable, this would ignore impacts of the research on other researchers and less trackable decisionmakers
(Context for asking this: I am considering ways to make The Unjournal’s evaluation metrics more useful.)
Update: OK, I see you have done some more work in this area, reported in this post; I will try to dig into that. However, I’m not sure you expressed a specific ‘value model’ there?