IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Journal Submissions to the UK's Research Assessment Exercises 1996 and 2001 for UoA 43 (Business and Management Studies)


  • Bence, Valerie
  • Oppenheim, Charles


This paper reports on doctoral research being undertaken into journal submissions to the UK RAE, specifically for BMS (Business and Management Studies -- Unit of Assessment 43). Data gathered post-1996 and more recently post-2001 enables a longitudinal approach to be taken. Although only one part of the evidence in RAE submissions, the listing of published journal outputs provides the primary evidence for research quality to most RAE panels, and is a significant driver of the final grade awarded, and thus the funding received by submitting institutions. Pertinent issues to this UoA are discussed (the nature of management research, discipline boundaries, modes of knowledge production) which invariably have an effect on the type of research produced, publication outlet decisions and ultimately assessment. A detailed analysis is made comparing the results of the submissions to, and results of the last two RAEs for this very large field. The diversity of titles and subject coverage is discussed, and implications for the future are considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Bence, Valerie & Oppenheim, Charles, 2004. "A Comparison of Journal Submissions to the UK's Research Assessment Exercises 1996 and 2001 for UoA 43 (Business and Management Studies)," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 402-417, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:22:y:2004:i:4:p:402-417

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


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

    Cited by:

    1. Goodall, Amanda H., 2009. "Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1079-1092, September.


    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:eee:eurman:v:22:y:2004:i:4:p:402-417. 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). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.