Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Sgroi, Daniel

    ()
    (University of Warwick)

  • Oswald, Andrew J.

    ()
    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

Many governments wish to assess the quality of their universities. A prominent example is the UK's new Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014. In the REF, peer-review panels will be provided with information on publications and citations. This paper suggests a way in which panels could choose the weights to attach to these two indicators. The analysis draws in an intuitive way on the concept of Bayesian updating (where citations gradually reveal information about the initially imperfectly-observed importance of the research). Our study should not be interpreted as the argument that only mechanistic measures ought to be used in a REF.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp7024.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Discussion Papers with number 7024.

as in new window
Length: 37 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2012
Date of revision:
Publication status: forthcoming in: Economic Journal
Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp7024

Contact details of provider:
Postal: IZA, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 228 3894 223
Fax: +49 228 3894 180
Web page: http://www.iza.org

Order Information:
Postal: IZA, Margard Ody, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Email:

Related research

Keywords: citations; RAE Research Assessment Exercise 2008; university evaluation; bibliometrics; REF 2014 (Research Excellence Framework); Bayesian methods;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, 01.
  2. Chiao, Benjamin & Lerner, Josh & Tirole, Jean, 2006. "The Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: an Empirical Analysis," IDEI Working Papers, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse 388, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
  3. Lothian, James R. & Taylor, Mark P., 2006. "Real Exchange Rates Over the Past Two Centuries : How Important is the Harrod-Balassa-Samuelson Effect?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 768, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  4. David Gill & Daniel Sgroi, 2005. "Sequential Decisions with Tests," Economics Series Working Papers 242, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  5. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Gerard A. Pfann, 2012. "Reputation And Earnings: The Roles Of Quality And Quantity In Academe," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(1), pages 1-16, 01.
  6. Sofronis Clerides & Panos Pashardes & Alexandros Polycarpou, 2011. "Peer Review vs Metric‐based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(311), pages 565-583, 07.
  7. Goodall, Amanda H., 2009. "Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1079-1092, September.
  8. Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, 02.
  9. Paul Collier & Anke Hoeffler, 2004. "Greed and Grievance in Civil War," Development and Comp Systems 0409007, EconWPA.
  10. Sgroi, D., 2000. "Optimizing Information in the Herd: Guinea Pigs, Profit and Welfare," Economics Papers 2000-w14, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
  11. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2011. "The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 275-291.
  12. David Gill & Daniel Sgroi, 2011. "The Optimal Choice of Pre-Launch Reviewer," Economics Series Working Papers 562, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  13. Gabrielle Demange, 2010. "Sharing information in web communities," Working Papers 246546, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France.
  14. Emmanuel Farhi & Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2005. "Certifying New Technologies," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 3(2-3), pages 734-744, 04/05.
  15. Frederic S. Lee, 2007. "The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 309-325, March.
  16. Oswald, Andrew J., 2009. "A Suggested Method for the Measurement of World-Leading Research (Illustrated with Data on Economics)," IZA Discussion Papers 4313, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  17. Taylor, Curtis R, 1999. "Time-on-the-Market as a Sign of Quality," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 555-78, July.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Graziella Bertocchi & Alfonso Gambardella & Tullio Jappelli & Carmela A. Nappi & Franco Peracchi, 2013. "Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy," Center for Economic Research (RECent), University of Modena and Reggio E., Dept. of Economics 093, University of Modena and Reggio E., Dept. of Economics.
  2. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2014. "Citation-Capture Rates by Economic Journals:Do they Differ from Other Disciplines and Does it Matter?," Working Papers in Economics, University of Waikato, Department of Economics 14/10, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.

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:iza:izadps:dp7024. 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: (Mark Fallak).

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.