IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/pstrev/v7y2009i1p3-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science

Author

Listed:
  • Linda Butler
  • Ian McAllister

Abstract

Evaluations of research quality in universities are now widely used in the advanced economies. The UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is the most highly developed of these research evaluations. This article uses the results from the 2001 RAE in political science to assess the utility of citations as a measure of outcome, relative to other possible indicators. The data come from the 4,400 submissions to the RAE political science panel. The 28,128 citations analysed relate not only to journal articles, but to all submitted publications – including authored and edited books and book chapters. The results show that citations are the most important predictor of the RAE outcome, followed by whether or not a department had a representative on the RAE panel. The results highlight the need to develop robust quantitative indicators to evaluate research quality which would obviate the need for a peer evaluation based on a large committee. Bibliometrics should form the main component of such a portfolio of quantitative indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Butler & Ian McAllister, 2009. "Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 7(1), pages 3-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:pstrev:v:7:y:2009:i:1:p:3-17
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00167.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00167.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00167.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Smith, Simon & Ward, Vicky & House, Allan, 2011. "‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1369-1379.
    2. Gianni De Fraja & Giovanni Facchini & John Gathergood, 2016. "How Much Is That Star in the Window? Professorial Salaries and Research Performance in UK Universities," Discussion Papers 2016-13, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    3. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Mahshid Abdoli & Paul Wilson & Jonathan Levitt, 2023. "In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(8), pages 941-953, August.
    4. Tombazos, Christis G. & Dobra, Matthew, 2014. "Formulating research policy on expert advice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 166-181.
    5. Andrea Mervar & Maja Jokić, 2022. "Core-periphery nexus in the EU social sciences: bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5793-5817, October.
    6. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    7. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2011. "The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 275-291.
    8. Pisár Peter & Šipikal Miroslav, 2017. "Negative Effects of Performance Based Funding of Universities: The Case of Slovakia," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 171-189, December.
    9. V. A. Traag & L. Waltman, 2019. "Systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK REF," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:pstrev:v:7:y:2009:i:1:p:3-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1478-9299 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.