Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK research assessment exercise in political science

Linda Butler*, Ian McAllister

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    45 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Evaluations of research quality in universities are now widely used in the advanced economies. The UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is the most highly developed of these research evaluations. This article uses the results from the 2001 RAE in political science to assess the utility of citations as a measure of outcome, relative to other possible indicators. The data come from the 4,400 submissions to the RAE political science panel. The 28,128 citations analysed relate not only to journal articles, but to all submitted publications - including authored and edited books and book chapters. The results show that citations are the most important predictor of the RAE outcome, followed by whether or not a department had a representative on the RAE panel. The results highlight the need to develop robust quantitative indicators to evaluate research quality which would obviate the need for a peer evaluation based on a large committee. Bibliometrics should form the main component of such a portfolio of quantitative indicators.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)3-17
    Number of pages15
    JournalPolitical Studies Review
    Volume7
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jan 2009

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK research assessment exercise in political science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this