IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Formulating research policy on expert advice

Listed author(s):
  • Tombazos, Christis G.
  • Dobra, Matthew

National Research Assessments represent the principal policy used by countries with public university systems to improve the quality of their universities׳ research. They typically employ expert panels of local academics to assess journal quality, and use such assessments to reward publications. We propose a model of how experts assess quality and test this model using data from the recent Australian assessment. Controlling for objective quality, we show that experts׳ cognitive biases dominate their assessments. Consequently, such assessments exaggerate the quality of the experts׳ research and understate that of their colleagues. Our model can explain 95% of the variation in assessments.

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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429211400138X
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal European Economic Review.

Volume (Year): 72 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 166-181

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:166-181
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.10.001
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eer

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. 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, vol. 78(311), pages 565-583, 07.
  2. Linda Butler & Ian McAllister, 2009. "Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 7(1), pages 3-17.
  3. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2011. "An updated ranking of academic journals in economics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1525-1538, November.
  4. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael Mcaleer, 2013. "What Do Experts Know About Forecasting Journal Quality? A Comparison With Isi Research Impact In Finance," Annals of Financial Economics (AFE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 1-30.
  5. Sauer, Raymond D, 1988. "Estimates of the Returns to Quality and Coauthorship in Economic Academia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 855-866, August.
  6. Sharon M. Oster & Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1998. "Aging And Productivity Among Economists," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 154-156, February.
  7. Tuckman, Howard P & Leahey, Jack, 1975. "What Is an Article Worth?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(5), pages 951-967, October.
  8. Cameron, A Colin & Windmeijer, Frank A G, 1996. "R-Squared Measures for Count Data Regression Models with Applications to Health-Care Utilization," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 14(2), pages 209-220, April.
  9. Kalaitzidakis, P. & Mamuneas, T.P. & Stengos, T., 2003. "Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions," Working Papers 2003-8, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
  10. Cameron, A Colin & Trivedi, Pravin K, 1986. "Econometric Models Based on Count Data: Comparisons and Applications of Some Estimators and Tests," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(1), pages 29-53, January.
  11. Peter Abelson, 2009. "The Ranking of Economics Journals by the Economic Society of Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 28(2), pages 176-180, 06.
  12. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
  13. Timothy Feddersen & Alvaro Sandroni, 2006. "A Theory of Participation in Elections," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1271-1282, September.
  14. Stigler, George J & Stigler, Stephen M & Friedland, Claire, 1995. "The Journals of Economics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 331-359, April.
  15. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael Mcaleer, 2013. "What Do Experts Know About Forecasting Journal Quality? A Comparison With Isi Research Impact In Finance," Annals of Financial Economics (AFE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 1-30.
  16. Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "The Relative Impacts of Economics Journals: 1970-1990," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 640-666, June.
  17. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert H, 1996. "Favoritism in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 958-978, October.
  18. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2003. "Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(6), pages 1346-1366, December.
  19. Liebowitz, S J & Palmer, J P, 1984. "Assessing the Relative Impacts of Economic Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 77-88, March.
  20. Matthew O Jackson & Hugo F Sonnenschein, 2007. "Overcoming Incentive Constraints by Linking Decisions -super-1," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 241-257, 01.
  21. Tombazos, Christis G., 2005. "A revisionist perspective of European research in economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 251-277, February.
  22. Dag W Aksnes & Randi Elisabeth Taxt, 2004. "Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 33-41, April.
  23. Gerardi, Dino & McLean, Richard & Postlewaite, Andrew, 2009. "Aggregation of expert opinions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 339-371, March.
  24. Franklin G. Mixon Jr & Kamal P. Upadhyaya, 2012. "The Economics Olympics: Ranking U.S. Economics Departments Based on Prizes, Medals, and Other Awards," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 79(1), pages 90-96, July.
  25. Mita Bhattacharya & Russell Smyth, 2003. "The Life Cycle Research Output Of Professors In Australian Economics Departments: An Empirical Analysis Based On Survey Questionnaires," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 22(2), pages 30-46, 06.
  26. Emanuela Reale & Anna Barbara & Antonio Costantini, 2007. "Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: lessons from the Italian experience," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 216-228, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:166-181. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.