Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Peer Review vs Metric‐based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments

Contents:

Author Info

  • SOFRONIS CLERIDES
  • PANOS PASHARDES
  • ALEXANDROS POLYCARPOU

Abstract

RAE ratings have been criticised as biased in favour of universities that are old, located in England, large and represented on the assessment panel. We investigate these accusations for the 1996 and 2001 RAE ratings of economics departments using independent rankings from the academic literature as quality controls. We find RAE ratings to be largely in agreement with the profession’s view of research quality as documented by independent rankings, although the latter appear to me more focused on research quality at the top end of academic achievement. Accusations of bias find no support in the data, with the exception of panel membership in 1996

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Download Info

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by London School of Economics and Political Science in its journal Economica.

Volume (Year): 78 (2011)
Issue (Month): 311 (07)
Pages: 565-583

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:78:y:2011:i:311:p:565-583

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE
Phone: +44 (020) 7405 7686
Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0013-0427
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=0013-0427

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Sgroi, Daniel & Oswald, Andrew J., 2012. "How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave?," IZA Discussion Papers 7024, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  2. Stelios Katranidis & Theodore Panagiotidis & Costas Zontanos, 2012. "An Evaluation of the Greek Universities Economics Departments," Working Paper Series 03_12, The Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
  3. Tom Coupé & Victor Ginsburgh & Abdul Ghafar Noury, 2008. "Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Working Papers ECARES 2008_014, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  4. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo & Sapio, Alessandro, 2013. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-36.
  5. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni & Alessandro Sapio, 2012. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise (2001-2003)," Discussion Papers 4_2012, CRISEI, University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:78:y:2011:i:311:p:565-583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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