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

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

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://papers.econ.ucy.ac.cy/RePEc/papers/06-07.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Cyprus Department of Economics in its series University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics with number 7-2006.

as in new window
Length: 7 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ucy:cypeua:7-2006

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.econ.ucy.ac.cy

Related research

Keywords: RAE ratings; university rankings; research assessment; research funding; peer review;

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. 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.
  2. Stelios Katranidis & Theodore Panagiotidis & Costas Zontanos, 2012. "An evaluation of the Greek Universities Economics Departments," Discussion Paper Series 2012_01, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Jan 2012.
  3. Sgroi, Daniel & Oswald, Andrew J., 2012. "How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave?," IZA Discussion Papers 7024, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  4. Tom Coupé & Victor Ginsburgh & Abdul Noury, 2010. "Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 1-11, January.
  5. 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.

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:ucy:cypeua:7-2006. 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: ().

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.