The nature of publishing and assessment in geography and environmental studies: evidence from the research assessment exercise 2008. / Richards, Keith; Batty, Mike; Edwards, Kevin; Findlay, Allan; Foody, Giles; Frostick, Lynne; Jones, Kelvyn; Lee, Roger; Livingstone, David; Marsden, Terry; Petts, Judith; Philo, Chris; Simon, David; Smith, Susan; Thomas, David.
In: Area, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2009, p. 231-243.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The nature of publishing and assessment in geography and environmental studies: evidence from the research assessment exercise 2008
A1 - Richards,Keith
A1 - Batty,Mike
A1 - Edwards,Kevin
A1 - Findlay,Allan
A1 - Foody,Giles
A1 - Frostick,Lynne
A1 - Jones,Kelvyn
A1 - Lee,Roger
A1 - Livingstone,David
A1 - Marsden,Terry
A1 - Petts,Judith
A1 - Philo,Chris
A1 - Simon,David
A1 - Smith,Susan
A1 - Thomas,David
AU - Richards,Keith
AU - Batty,Mike
AU - Edwards,Kevin
AU - Findlay,Allan
AU - Foody,Giles
AU - Frostick,Lynne
AU - Jones,Kelvyn
AU - Lee,Roger
AU - Livingstone,David
AU - Marsden,Terry
AU - Petts,Judith
AU - Philo,Chris
AU - Simon,David
AU - Smith,Susan
AU - Thomas,David
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - We present a summary of the kinds of outputs submitted to the Geography and Environmental Studies sub-panel (H-32) for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and examine the relationships between the peer assessment of research quality that the RAE process has typified, and alternative modes of assessment based on bibliometrics. This comparison is effected using (in aggregate form) some of the results from the RAE, together with citation data gathered after completion of the RAE assessment, specifically for the purpose of this paper. We conclude that, if it continues to be necessary and desirable to assess, in some measure and however imprecisely, research quality, then peer assessment cannot be replaced by bibliometrics. Bibliometrics permit measurement of something that may be linked to quality but is essentially a different phenomenon – a measure of ‘impact’, for example.
AB - We present a summary of the kinds of outputs submitted to the Geography and Environmental Studies sub-panel (H-32) for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and examine the relationships between the peer assessment of research quality that the RAE process has typified, and alternative modes of assessment based on bibliometrics. This comparison is effected using (in aggregate form) some of the results from the RAE, together with citation data gathered after completion of the RAE assessment, specifically for the purpose of this paper. We conclude that, if it continues to be necessary and desirable to assess, in some measure and however imprecisely, research quality, then peer assessment cannot be replaced by bibliometrics. Bibliometrics permit measurement of something that may be linked to quality but is essentially a different phenomenon – a measure of ‘impact’, for example.
KW - RAE
KW - Output types
KW - Peer review
KW - Bibliometrics
U2 - 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00908.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00908.x
M1 - Article
JO - Area
JF - Area
SN - 0004-0894
IS - 3
VL - 41
SP - 231
EP - 243
ER -