David W. Lynn

To compare expert assessment with bibliometric indicators as tools to assess the quality and importance of scientific research papers. Shortly after their publication in 2005, the quality and importance of a cohort of nearly 700 Wellcome Trust (WT) associated research papers were assessed by expert reviewers; each paper was reviewed by two WT expert reviewers. After 3 years, we compared this initial assessment with other measures of paper impact. Shortly after publication, 62 (9%) of the 687 research papers were determined to describe at least a ‘major addition to knowledge’ –6 were thought to be ‘landmark’ papers. At an aggregate level, after 3 years, there was a strong positive association between expert assessment and impact as measured by number of citations and F1000 rating. However, there were some important exceptions indicating that bibliometric measures may not be sufficient in isolation as measures of research quality and importance, and especially not for assessing single papers or small groups of research publications. When attempting to assess the quality and importance of research papers, we found that sole reliance on bibliometric indicators would have led us to miss papers containing important results as judged by expert review. In particular, some papers that were highly rated by experts were not highly cited during the first three years after publication. Tools that link expert peer reviews of research paper quality and importance to more quantitative indicators, such as citation analysis would be valuable additions to the field of research assessment and evaluation.

In July 2004, the UK government published a 10-year science and innovation framework aimed at providing a more strategic, partnership-based approach to delivering science. With the aim of creating a UK society that is confident about the governance, regulation and use of science and technology, how can we sustain or increase the supply of money for research, how should funding agencies dispense money, and how can we optimize the partnership arrangements for the funding of research?

With the improvement in spatial resolution of thermal sensors over the past decade the employment of thermal infrared satellite data for soil and surface-material survey has become increasingly attractive. The individual orbital characteristics of each satellite provide the opportunity of acquiring monotemporal (same day, one time), multitemporal (same day, different times) and multidate (different days, same time) imagery. The time at which such imagery is acquired is of great importance since the emitted thermal response of any natural material is a function not only of the material's emissivity, but also of its temperature at the time of imaging. The implications of acquiring monotemporal, multitemporal and multi-date thermal infrared data are discussed in relation to thermal sensors in past, current and future satellites.

Three approaches have been adopted to assess the importance of individual spectral bands in data from an airborne multispectral scanner flown over part of the English Fenlands; these involve (i) an analysis of the interrelationships between the spectral bands, (ii) a study of the spectral response of materials and (iii) a study of the relationships between physical properties of materials and their spectral responses. Results indicate that where exposed surface materials are found, all spectral bands are strongly positively correlated (r>0.866) with one another, apart from the thermal band 11 which is negatively correlated (r < -0.73) with all other bands. Study of the spectral response of materials suggests that the two middle-infrared bands, 9 and 10, reveal the greatest spectral range and variability, providing maximum contrast in relation to changes in surface material. Additionally, the thermal band 11 is found to be the best discriminator between the sandy central-channel material and surrounding clay materials.