IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lan/wpaper/603570.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Peer assessment of research: how many publications per staff?

Author

Listed:
  • J Taylor
  • I Walker

Abstract

The UK's higher education funding councils have proposed reducing the number of submitted outputs from four to three in the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework to reduce the burden on panel members. This reduction is considered to be sufficient for panels to form a robust view of the achievements of individuals and their departments. The key issue is whether the subject panels would have sufficient information to judge the quality of research at departmental level with details of only three outputs per staff. Two journal quality indicators are used in this note to test the assumption that three publications is likely to be as useful to the panels as four to measure research quality in three cognate units of assessment (business & management, economics & econometrics and accounting & finance). In fact, the results indicate that two publications would be sufficient, thereby providing more time for a careful assessment of submitted outputs.

Suggested Citation

  • J Taylor & I Walker, 2009. "Peer assessment of research: how many publications per staff?," Working Papers 603570, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:lan:wpaper:603570
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/economics/working-papers/PeerAssessment.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yolanda Kodrzycki & Pingkang David Yu, 2005. "New approaches to ranking economics journals," Working Papers 05-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:lan:wpaper:603570. 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) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/delanuk.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.