IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausact/v20y2010i1p14-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Performance Measurement and Resource Allocation

Author

Listed:
  • Jane Broadbent

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Jane Broadbent, 2010. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Performance Measurement and Resource Allocation," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 20(1), pages 14-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausact:v:20:y:2010:i:1:p:14-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00076.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. David Otley, 2010. "Research Assessment in the UK: An Overview of 1992–2008," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 20(1), pages 3-13, March.
    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. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    2. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Norman Gemmell, 2022. "Sources of convergence and divergence in university research quality: evidence from the performance-based research funding system in New Zealand," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3021-3047, June.
    3. Michael C. Calver & Maggie Lilith & Christopher R. Dickman, 2013. "A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAEs) restrict literature availability for nature conservation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 243-255, April.
    4. Martin-Sardesai, Ann & Irvine, Helen & Tooley, Stuart & Guthrie, James, 2017. "Organizational change in an Australian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 399-412.
    5. John Mingers & Jesse R. O’Hanley & Musbaudeen Okunola, 2017. "Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1627-1643, December.
    6. Paul De Lange & Brendan O’Connell & M.R. Mathews & Alan Sangster, 2010. "The ERA: A Brave New World of Accountability for Australian University Accounting Schools," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 20(1), pages 24-37, March.
    7. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Norman Gemmell, 2022. "Sources of convergence and divergence in university research quality: evidence from the performance-based research funding system in New Zealand," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3021-3047, June.
    8. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    9. Brooks, Chris & Fenton, Evelyn M. & Walker, James T., 2014. "Gender and the evaluation of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 990-1001.
    10. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    11. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 21104, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    12. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2022. "Methods to evaluate institutional responses to performance‐based research funding systems," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 615-634, September.

    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.

      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:ausact:v:20:y:2010:i:1:p:14-23. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1035-6908 .

      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.