IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esx/essedp/14461.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Tale of Two Metrics: Research Assessment vs Recognised Excellence

Author

Listed:
  • Régibeau, P
  • Rockett, K

Abstract

We build an economics department entirely composed of Nobel Prize winners and evaluate it using standard research assessment metrics. Performing the same evaluation on existing departments, we find that the rating of our Nobel Prize department does not stand out from other departments. Compared to recent research evaluations, our Nobel Prize department's ranking is less stable. This suggests a significant effect of score "targeting" induced by the ranking exercise. We find some evidence that modifying the assessment criteria to increase the totatl number of publications considered can help distinguish the top.

Suggested Citation

  • Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2014. "A Tale of Two Metrics: Research Assessment vs Recognised Excellence," Economics Discussion Papers 14461, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:esx:essedp:14461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repository.essex.ac.uk/14461/
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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, July.
    2. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    3. Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
    4. Bruno S. Frey & Margit Osterloh, 2011. "Rankings games," ECON - Working Papers 039, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. David N. Laband, 2013. "On the Use and Abuse of Economics Journal Rankings," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 223-254, August.
    6. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Caprasecca, Alessandro, 2009. "Allocative efficiency in public research funding: Can bibliometrics help?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 206-215, February.
    7. William H. Starbuck, 2005. "How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 180-200, April.
    8. John Hudson, 2013. "Ranking Journals," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 202-222, August.
    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. Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "The Objective Measurement of World-Leading Research," IZA Discussion Papers 8829, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    2. Stephan B. Bruns & David I. Stern, 2016. "Research assessment using early citation information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 917-935, August.

    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:esx:essedp:14461. 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: (Essex Economics Web Manager). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/edessuk.html .

    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 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.

    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.