IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucy/cypeua/7-2006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Peer Review vs Metric-Based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments

Author

Listed:
  • Sofronis Clerides
  • Panos Pashardes
  • Alexandros Polycarpou

Abstract

RAE ratings have been criticised as biased in favour of universities that are old, located in England, large and represented on the assessment panel. We investigate these accusations for the 1996 and 2001 RAE ratings of economics departments using independent rankings from the academic literature as quality controls. We find RAE ratings to be largely in agreement with the profession’s view of research quality as documented by independent rankings, although the latter appear to me more focused on research quality at the top end of academic achievement. Accusations of bias find no support in the data, with the exception of panel membership in 1996

Suggested Citation

  • Sofronis Clerides & Panos Pashardes & Alexandros Polycarpou, 2006. "Peer Review vs Metric-Based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 7-2006, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucy:cypeua:7-2006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.econ.ucy.ac.cy/RePEc/papers/06-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gianni De Fraja & Giovanni Facchini & John Gathergood, 2016. "How Much Is That Star in the Window? Professorial Salaries and Research Performance in UK Universities," Discussion Papers 2016-13, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    2. Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Ranking Economics Journals Using Data From a National Research Evaluation Exercise," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(5), pages 621-636, October.
    3. Stelios Katranidis & Theodore Panagiotidis & Costas Zontanos, 2017. "Economists, Research Performance and National Inbreeding: North Versus South," Economic Notes, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, vol. 46(1), pages 145-163, February.
    4. Tombazos, Christis G. & Dobra, Matthew, 2014. "Formulating research policy on expert advice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 166-181.
    5. Battistin, Erich & Ovidi, Marco, 2017. "Rising Stars," IZA Discussion Papers 11198, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    6. Tom Coupé & Victor Ginsburgh & Abdul Noury, 2010. "Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    8. Stelios Katranidis & Theodore Panagiotidis & Costas Zontanos, 2014. "An Evaluation Of The Greek Universities’ Economics Departments," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 173-182, April.
    9. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo & Sapio, Alessandro, 2013. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-36.
    10. Stephan B. Bruns & David I. Stern, 2016. "Research assessment using early citation information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 917-935, August.
    11. repec:esx:essedp:757 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni & Alessandro Sapio, 2012. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise (2001-2003)," Discussion Papers 4_2012, CRISEI, University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.

    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:ucy:cypeua:7-2006. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://www.ucy.ac.cy/econ/en .

    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.