IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Assessment of Research Quality: Peer Review or Metrics?


  • J Taylor


This paper investigates the extent to which the outcomes of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, determined by peer review, can be explained by a set of quantitative indicators, some of which were made available to the review panels. Three cognate units of assessment are examined in detail: business & management, economics & econometrics, and accounting & finance. The paper focuses on the extent to which the quality of research output, as determined by the RAE panel, can be explained by the journal quality indicator published by the Association of Business Schools. The main finding is that although a high proportion of the variation between universities in their RAE outcomes can be explained by quantitative indicators, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim by the ABS that its Journal Quality Guide is a sufficiently accurate predictor of research quality to justify a predominant role in the research assessment process. A further finding is that there appears to be an element of bias in the decisions reached by the business & management panel and by the economics & econometrics panel.

Suggested Citation

  • J Taylor, 2009. "The Assessment of Research Quality: Peer Review or Metrics?," Working Papers 602544, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:lan:wpaper:602544

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Jim Taylor, "undated". "Measuring Research Performance in Business Managment Studies in the United Kingdom: the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise," Working Papers ec15/94, Department of Economics, University of Lancaster.
    2. Jim Taylor, "undated". "A Statistical Analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise," Working Papers ec14/94, Department of Economics, University of Lancaster.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:lan:wpaper:602544. 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: (Giorgio Motta). 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.

    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.