IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v28y2000i2p237-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring research quality: peer review 1, citation indices 0

Author

Listed:
  • Brinn, Tony
  • Jones, Michael John
  • Pendlebury, Maurice

Abstract

This short note adds to the debate on the most effective way in which to measure research quality. A survey of UK accounting academics shows that peer reviews are perceived to be more important than citation indices. This result is also true when the respondents were partitioned by seniority, institution and research activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Brinn, Tony & Jones, Michael John & Pendlebury, Maurice, 2000. "Measuring research quality: peer review 1, citation indices 0," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 237-239, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:28:y:2000:i:2:p:237-239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(99)00048-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones, M. J. & Brinn, T. & Pendlebury, M., 1996. "Judging the quality of research in business schools: A comment from accounting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 597-602, October.
    2. Jones, M. J. & Brinn, T. & Pendlebury, M., 1996. "Journal evaluation methodologies: A balanced response," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 607-612, October.
    3. Doyle, J. R. & Arthurs, A. J. & Mcaulay, L. & Osborne, P. G., 1996. "Citation as effortful voting: A reply to ones, Brinn and Pendlebury," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 603-606, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Boon L. & Worthington, Andrew C., 2016. "A network DEA quantity and quality-orientated production model: An application to Australian university research services," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 26-33.
    2. Vastag, Gyula & Montabon, Frank, 2002. "Journal characteristics, rankings and social acculturation in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 109-126, April.
    3. Holsapple, Clyde W. & Lee-Post, Anita, 2010. "Behavior-based analysis of knowledge dissemination channels in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 167-178, June.
    4. Rosenstreich, Daniela & Wooliscroft, Ben, 2009. "Measuring the impact of accounting journals using Google Scholar and the g-index," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 227-239.
    5. Iszan Hana Kaharudin & Mohammad Syuhaimi Ab-Rahman & Roslan Abd-Shukor & Azamin Zaharim & Mohd Jailani Mohd Nor & Ahmad Kamal Ariffin Mohd Ihsan & Shahrom Md Zain & Afiq Hipni & Kamisah Osman & Ruszym, 2022. "How Does Supervision Technique Affect Research? Towards Sustainable Performance: Publications and Students from Pure and Social Sciences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Stephen Clibborn & Sally Hanna‐Osborne, 2023. "The employer perspective on wage law non‐compliance: State of the field and a framework for new understanding," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 411-438, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ormerod, R. J., 2000. "Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 241-245, April.
    2. Ormerod, R. J., 1997. "An observation on publication habits based on the analysis of MS/OR journals," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 599-603, October.
    3. Jones, Michael John, 1999. "Critically evaluating an applications vs theory framework for research quality," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 397-401, June.
    4. Holsapple, Clyde W. & Lee-Post, Anita, 2010. "Behavior-based analysis of knowledge dissemination channels in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 167-178, June.
    5. Mitchell, George, 1996. "Judging research quality and journals: A call for debate," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 613-613, October.
    6. Rosenstreich, Daniela & Wooliscroft, Ben, 2009. "Measuring the impact of accounting journals using Google Scholar and the g-index," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 227-239.
    7. J Mingers, 2008. "Exploring the dynamics of journal citations: Modelling with s-curves," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(8), pages 1013-1025, August.
    8. Jones, M. J. & Brinn, T. & Pendlebury, M., 1996. "Journal evaluation methodologies: A balanced response," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 607-612, October.
    9. Vastag, Gyula & Montabon, Frank, 2002. "Journal characteristics, rankings and social acculturation in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 109-126, April.
    10. Doyle, John R., 1999. "Evaluating OR/MS research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 403-405, June.
    11. Hussain, Simon, 2010. "Accounting journals and the ABS quality ratings," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16.
    12. Tharapos, Meredith & Marriott, Neil, 2020. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Research quality in accounting education," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    13. Sahoo, Biresh & Singh, Ramadhar & Mishra, Bineet & Sankaran, Krithiga, 2015. "Research Productivity in Management Schools of India: A Directional Benefit-of-Doubt Model Analysis," MPRA Paper 67046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Kym Fraser & Benedict Sheehy, 2020. "Abundant Publications but Minuscule Impact: The Irrelevance of Academic Accounting Research on Practice and the Profession," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-36, October.
    15. Jayne Bisman & Weini Liao, 2009. "Making the mainstream," Asian Review of Accounting, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 17(3), pages 180-197, September.
    16. Yi-Ching Liaw & Te-Yi Chan & Chin-Yuan Fan & Cheng-Hsin Chiang, 2014. "Can the technological impact of academic journals be evaluated? The practice of non-patent reference (NPR) analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 17-37, October.
    17. Brooks, Chris & Schopohl, Lisa, 2018. "Topics and trends in finance research: What is published, who publishes it and what gets cited?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(6), pages 615-637.
    18. Sahoo, Biresh K. & Singh, Ramadhar & Mishra, Bineet & Sankaran, Krithiga, 2017. "Research productivity in management schools of India during 1968-2015: A directional benefit-of-doubt model analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 66(PA), pages 118-139.
    19. Geert Campenhout & Tom Caneghem & Steve Uytbergen, 2008. "A comparison of overall and sub-area journal influence: The case of the accounting literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 61-90, October.
    20. Iszan Hana Kaharudin & Mohammad Syuhaimi Ab-Rahman & Roslan Abd-Shukor & Azamin Zaharim & Mohd Jailani Mohd Nor & Ahmad Kamal Ariffin Mohd Ihsan & Shahrom Md Zain & Afiq Hipni & Kamisah Osman & Ruszym, 2022. "How Does Supervision Technique Affect Research? Towards Sustainable Performance: Publications and Students from Pure and Social Sciences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, May.

    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:eee:jomega:v:28:y:2000:i:2:p:237-239. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.