IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Assessment of Research Quality: Peer Review or Metrics?

Listed author(s):
  • 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.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department in its series Working Papers with number 602544.

in new window

Date of creation: 2009
Handle: RePEc:lan:wpaper:602544
Contact details of provider: Postal:

Phone: +44 (1524) 594601
Fax: +44 (1524) 594244
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

in new window

  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)

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: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)

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.