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

Economica

Volumn 78, Issue 311, 2011, Pages 565-583

  Clerides, Sofronis ^a,b   Pashardes, Panos ^a   Polycarpou, Alexandros ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^b CEPR ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; ECONOMIC RELATIONS; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

ENGLAND; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 79958293683     PISSN: 00130427     EISSN: 14680335     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00837.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Baker, G. P. (1992). Incentive contracts and performance measurement. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 598-614.
2. Clerides, S., Nearchou, P. and Pashardes, P. (2008). Intermediaries as quality assessors: the case of tour operators. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26, 372-92.
3. Combes, P. P. and Linnemer, L. (2003). Where are the economists who publish? Publication concentration and rankings in Europe based on cumulative publications. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 1250-308.
4. Coupé, T. (2001). Can peer review be trusted? The UK's 'Research Assessment Exercise' on trial. In M. Dewatripont, F. Thys-Cĺement and L. Wilkin (eds), The Strategic Analysis of Universities: Microeconomic and Management Perspectives. Brussels: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, Université de Bruxelles.
5. Coupé, T. (2003). Revealed performances: worldwide rankings of economists and economics departments, 1990-2000. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 1309-45.
6. Courty, P. and Marschke, G. (2008). A general test for distortions in performance measures. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 428-41.
7. Doyle, J., Arthurs, A., Green, R., McAulay, L., Pitt, M., Bottom-Ley, P. and Evans, W. (1996). The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of the judged as judge: analyses of the UK 1992 Research Assessment Exercise data for Business and Management Studies. Omega: International Journal of Management Science, 24, 13-28.
8. Dusansky, R. and Vernon, C. J. (1998). Rankings of U.S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 157-70.
9. Gambrill, E. (2002). I am not a rubber stamp: my experience as a non-UK RAE adviser. Journal of Social Work, 2, 169-85.
10. Garicano, L., Palacios-Huerta, I. and Prendergast, C. (2005). Favoritism under social pressure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87, 208-16.
11. Guermat, C., Harris, R. D. and Hashimzade, N. (2004). Rules versus discretion in committee decision making: an application to the 2001 RAE for UK economic departments. Unpublished manuscript.
12. Johnes, J., Taylor, J. and Francis, B. (1993). The research performance of UK universities: a statistical analysis of the results of the 1989 Research Selectivity Exercise. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 156, 271-86.
13. Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. and Stengos, T. (1999). European economics: an analysis based on publications in the core journals. European Economic Review, 43, 1150-68.
14. Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. and Stengos, T. (2003). Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 1346-66.
15. Kocher, M. G. and Sutter, M. (2001). The institutional concentration of authors in top journals of economics during the last two decades. Economic Journal, 111, 405-21.
16. Laband, D. N. and Piette, M. J. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 194-203.
17. McKay, S. (2003). Quantifying quality: can quantitative data ('metrics') explain the 2001 RAE ratings for Social Policy and Administration? Social Policy and Administration, 37, 444-67.
18. Medoff, M. H. (2003). Editorial favoritism in economics? Southern Economic Journal, 70, 425-34.
19. Neary, J. P., Mirrlees, J. A. and Tirole, J. (2003). Evaluating economics research in Europe: an introduction. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 1239-49.
20. Oswald, A. J. (2007). An examination of the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals: evidence and implications for decision-makers. Economica, 74, 21-31.
21. Prendergast, C. and Topel, R. H. (1996). Favoritism in organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 958-78.
22. Rickman, N. and Witt, R. (2008). Favouritism and financial incentives: a natural experiment. Economica, 75, 296-309.
23. Roberts, G. (2003). Review of research assessment: report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK funding bodies. (accessed 3 August 2009).
24. Sharp, S. and Coleman, S. (2005). Ratings in the Research Assessment Exercise 2001-the patterns of university status and panel membership. Higher Education Quarterly, 59, 153-71.
25. Süssmuth, B., Steininger, M. and Ghio, S. (2002). Towards a European economics of economics: monitoring a decade of top research and providing some explanation. Scientometrics, 66, 579-612.
26. Taylor, J. (1995). A statistical analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 158, 241-61.
27. Tombazos, C. G. (2005). A revisionist perspective of European research in economics. European Economic Review, 49, 251-77.
28. Williams, G. (1998). Misleading, unscientific and unjust: the United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise. British Medical Journal, 316, 1079-82.