The role of academic journal publications in the UK Research Assessment Exercise

Learned Publishing

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 53-68

  Bence, Valerie ^a   Oppenheim, Charles ^a  

^a LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0842269047     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315104322710278     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Higher Education Funding Council for England, Research Assessment Exercise 2001: Membership of Assessment Panels RAE 3/99. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/3_99/
2. Smith, L.N. An analysis and reflections on the quality of nursing research in 1992. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1994:19, 385.
3. Watson, R. UKRAE 1996: critique, comment and concern. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1997:26(4), 641-2.
4. Ibid., 642.
5. Sayers, S. Who are my peers? The RAE in philosophy. Radical Philosophy 1997: 83, 2-5.
6. Watts, S. The RAE - environmentally unfriendly? 2002. Available at http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/bms/research/ebes/watts/THESarticle.doc
7. RAE 2001: Panel overview reports. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview/
8. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) website. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/assessment/
9. Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK (HERO) website. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/index.htm
10. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Publications, RAE 2001. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/5_99/ByUoA/crit10.htm
11. Sub-Committee on Research Indicators (SCRI), Issues in Quantitative Assessment of Departmental Research. CVCP/UFC Performance Indicators Steering Committee, London: CVCP N/89/147, 1989.
12. Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Research Performance indicators: First Annual Publications Survey, Calendar Year 1991, 1993; N/93/51, London, CVCP.
13. Higher Education Funding Council for England, RAE96 2/95 Guidance on Submissions. Para. 4.
14. Higher Education Funding Council for England, RAE Circular 5/00 - Guidance to Completing RAE Forms, Section 4 Research Outputs (RA2). Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/5_00/section4.htm
15. Gillette, R. Serious anomalies in the UGC comparative evaluation of the performance of psychology departments. 1986: Leicester Department of Psychology. University of Leicester, 4.
16. Gillette, R. Research performance indicators based on peer review: a critical analysis. Higher Education Quarterly 1989:43, 20-38.
17. The Times Higher Education Supplement, Research Assessment, 5 Jun 1987, xvi (no author given).
18. Smyth, F. and Anderson, J. University Performance Indicators. Science Policy Support Group Seminar: Aide-Memoire no 1. London: SPSG, 1987.
19. Phillimore, A. University research performance indicators in practice: the UGC's evaluation of British universities 1985-86. Research Policy 1989:18, 255-71.
20. Zander, M. Letter to The Times, 11 Jul 1986, xi
21. Universities Funding Council, Report on the 1989 RAE. London: UFC, 1989: para. 23.
22. Cave, M., Hanney, S. and Henkel, M. The use of performance indicators in higher education. Higher Education Policy Series 3, Jessica Kingsley 1997: 206.
23. Doyle, J. and Arthurs, A. The judge, the model of the judge and the model of the judged as judge: analysis of the UK 1992 RAE data for business and management studies. Omega: International Journal of Management Science 1996:24(1), 13-28.
24. Journal Citation Reports. Social Science Citation Index. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Scientific Information, 1998.
25. Doyle, J. and Arthurs, A. The judge, the model of the judge and the model of the judged as judge: analysis of the UK 1992 RAE data for Business and Management Studies. Omega: International Journal of Management Science 1996:24(1), 24.
26. Science and Engineering Policy Studies Unit. Quantitative Assessment of Departmental Research: A Summary of Academic Views. Policy Study no. 5, London: SEPSU, 1991.
27. Warner, J. A critical review of the application of citation studies to the RAE. Journal of Information Science 2000:26(6), 453-60.
28. Oppenheim, C. The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 RAE ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology. Journal of Documentation 1998:53, 477-87
29. Smith, A. and Eysenck, M. The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology. Jun 2002. Available at: http://psyserver.pc.rhbnc.ac.uk/citations.pdf
30. Roberts, Sir G. Review of Research Assessment; Report to the UK funding bodies. May 2003.
31. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Research Assessment. Consultative Paper 6/93. Bristol: HEFCE, 1993, para. 23.
32. Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Higher Education Management Statistics: A Future Strategy, London: CVCP, 1995, para. 3.1.
33. Joint Performance Indicators Working Group, Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in HE: A Consultative Report. Bristol: HEFCE, 1994, para. 3.
34. Royal Society of Chemistry. Chemistry in the UK - Will It Survive? Conclusions of the Royal Society of Chemistry Workshops, London: RSC, 1995.
35. Harley, S. and Lee, F. The Academic Labour Process and the RAE. Occasional Paper 24, Leicester University Business School, 1995.
36. Warde, A. The effects of the 1992 RAE. Network 1996:64, 1-2.
37. Henkel, M. The modernisation of research evaluation: rhe case of the UK. Higher Education 1999:38, 109.
38. Cooper, C. and Otley, D. The 1996 RAE for business and management. British Journal of Management 1998:9, 77.
39. RAE website, visited Apr 2000: http://www.rae.ac.uk/ASP/GuideFAQ
40. Rogers, J. The intellectual consequences of the RAE: a response. History of the Human Sciences 2000:13(2), 104.
41. JISC SCG Report to RSLG. May 2002. Unpublished
42. Fulford, M. Email to Internet Archaelogy ejournal Available at: http://intarch.ac.uk/news/rae.html
43. RAE 2001 Panel overview reports. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview
44. RAE 2001 Panel overview reports. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview (General Eng UoA 26).
45. RAE 2001 Panel overview reports. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview (History of Art, Design and Architecture UoA 60).
46. RAE 2001 Panel overview reports. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview (English UoA 50).
47. Weller, A. Emerging models of editorial peer-review. Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Medical Librarianship, London, 2-5 Jul 2000
48. Kling, R. and Cove, L. Electronic journals and legitimate media in the systems of scholarly communication. The Information Society 1995:11(4), 261-71. Available at: http://www.ics.uci.edu/̃kling/klingej2.html.
49. Campbell, K. et al. Journal publishing, journal reputation and the UK's Research Assessment Exercise. Journal of Law and Society 1999:26(4), 470-501.
50. Tomlinson, S. The Research Assessment Exercise and medical research. British Medical Journal, 4 Mar 2000: 320 (7235), 636-9.
51. Sayers, S. Who are my peers? The Research Assessment Exercise in philosophy. Radical Philosophy 1997: Jun, 83.
52. Liebowitz, S. and Palmer, J. Assessing the relative impacts of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature 1984, 77-88.
53. Crewe, I. Reputation, research and reality: the publication records of UK Politics departments 1978-1984. Essex Papers in Politics and Government, No. 44, 1987: Department of Government, University of Essex.
54. Extejt, M. and Smith, J.E. The behavioural sciences and management: an evaluation of the relevant journals. Journal of Management, 1990:16(2), 539-51.
55. Lee, F. and Harley, S. Economics divided: the limitations of peer review in a paradigm-bound social science. In D. Jany and M. Packer (eds), The New Higher Education: Issues and Directions for the Post-Dearing University. Staffordshire University Press, 1998: 185.
56. Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge, Quality Rankings of Journals in Management and Social Science. Cambridge, 1994: Research Papers in Management Studies.
57. Internal Journal Ranking List. Imperial College, Management School, London: 1994 (not published).
58. Walford, L. The Research Assessment Exercise: its effects on scholarly journal publishing. Learned Publishing 2000:13(1), 49-52.
59. Mynott, J. Publishing: a view from Cambridge University Press. In: The intellectual consequences of the RAE. History of the Human Sciences 1999:12(4), 127-31.
60. Piercy, N. Why it is fundamentally stupid for a business school to improve its RAE score. European Journal of Marketing 2000:34(1), 30.
61. Adams, J. et al. Benchmarking of the International Standing of Research in England: A Consultancy Study on Bibliometric Analysis. Centre for Policy Studies in Education, University of Leeds, 1998: 31.
62. Journal Citation Reports. Social Science Citation Index. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Scientific Information, 2000.
63. Warner, J. A critical review of the application of citation studies to the RAE. Journal of Information Science 2000:26(6), 453-460.
64. Phelan, T.J. A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics 1999:45(1), 117-36.
65. Parker, L.D., Guthrie, J. and Gray, R.H. Publish or Perish: The Social Construction of Quality in Accounting and Management Research. IPA Conference; University of Manchester, 1998. Available at: http://les.man.ac.uk/IPA/papers/parke 106.
66. Extejt, M. and Smith, J. The behavioural sciences and management: an evaluation of relevant journals. Journal of Management 1990:16(3), 539.
67. Coe, R.K. and Weinstock, I. Evaluating journal publications of marketing professors. Journal of Marketing Education 1983:5, 37-42.
68. Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F. and Schweizer, T. Making and measuring reputations. Long Range Planning 2000:33, 621-650.
69. Cave, M., Hanney, S. and Henkel, M. The use of performance indicators in higher education. Higher Education Policy Series 3, Jessica Kingsley 1997: 165.
70. Wells, A. Exploring the development of the independent, electronic, scholarly journal. University of Sheffield, Department of Information Studies, unpublished M.Sc. thesis 1998/99.
71. Willmott, H. Commercialising higher education in the UK: the state, industry and peer review. Higher Education Close-up Conference, University of Central Lancashire, 6-8 Jul 1998: 4.
72. Biglen, A. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 1973:57b, 204-13.
73. Adams, J. et al. Benchmarking of the International Standing of Research in England: A Consultancy Study on Bibliometric Analysis. Centre for Policy Studies in Education, University of Leeds, 1998: 18.
74. Elton, L. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly, 2000:54 (3), 274-83.
75. Stoker, D. Editorial, Journal of Librarianship and Information Sciences 1996:28(1), 4.
76. RAE 2001 Panel overview reports. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview (French UoA 51).
77. RAE 2001 Panel overview reports. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview (History UoA 59).
78. RAE 2001 Panel overview reports. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview (Iberian & Latin Am. Lang UoA 55).
79. Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2003 RAE: The Outcome, RAE 4/01 Dec 2001: para. 3.6. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs4_01/.
80. Ibid., para. 3.6
81. Higher Education Funding Council for England, RAE Circular 5/99: Assessment Panels Criteria and Working Methods. Available at: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/5_99/section3.htm
82. Mynott, J. Publishing: a view from Cambridge University Press. In: The intellectual consequences of the RAE. History of the Human Sciences 1999:12(4), 131.
83. Parker, L.D., Guthrie, J. and Gray, R.H. Publish or perish: the social construction of quality in accounting and management research. IPA Conference; University of Manchester, 1998. Available at: http://les.man.ac.uk/IPA/papers/parke106.txt
84. JISC Scholarly Communication Group Report, May 2002: 9 (unpublished).
85. Cousin, G. It's the way they tell it . . . The RAE explained in the light of rhetorical criticism. E-publication, 2000. available at: http://home.edu.coventry.ac.uk/edu037/magleddj.htm
86. Holmes, A. and Oppenheim, C. Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 RAE for Unit of Assessment 61: Library & Information Management. Information Research 2001:6(2), Jan.
87. Bence, V. Academic publishing in the context of 1996 RAE: a case study of the BMS sector. Loughborough University. Unpublished MA thesis, 2000, Appendix 10.
88. Stoker, D. Editorial. Journal of Librarianship and Information Sciences, Mar 1996:28(1).
89. Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, 38th edn. New Providence: Bowker, 2000.
90. Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Directory of Scholarly Electronic Journals and Academic Discussion Lists, Washington, DC: ARL, 2000.
91. Talib, A.A. The RAE and publications: a view of journal editors. Higher Education Review 2000:33 (1), 33.
92. Ibid., p. 41.
93. RAE 2001 Panel overview reports. Available at URL: http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/overview (UoAs 4 and 36).
94. Barnard, J.W. Reflections on Britain's Research Assessment Exercise. Journal of Legal Education, 1998:48 (4), 490.
95. Roberts, Sir G. Review of Research Assessment; Report to the UK Funding Bodies. May 2003.
96. Harnad, S., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S. and Oppenheim, C. Improving the UK RAE whilst making it cheaper and easier, 2003. Available at: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/̃harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.doc
97. Lawrence, S. Online or invisible? Nature, 2001: 411 (6837), 521. Available at: http://www.neci.nec.com/̃lawrence/papers/online-nature01/