The nature of publishing and assessment in geography and environmental studies: evidence from the research assessment exercise 2008

Keith Richards, Mike Batty, Kevin Edwards, Allan Findlay, Giles Foody, Lynne Frostick, Kelvyn Jones, Roger Lee, David Livingstone, Terry Marsden, Judith Petts, Chris Philo, David Simon, Susan Smith, David Thomas

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    14 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)231-243
    Number of pages13
    JournalArea
    Volume41
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2009

    Fingerprint

    geography
    evidence
    environmental study

    Keywords

    • RAE
    • Output types
    • Peer review
    • Bibliometrics

    Cite this

    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. / The nature of publishing and assessment in geography and environmental studies: evidence from the research assessment exercise 2008. In: Area. 2009 ; Vol. 41, No. 3. pp. 231-243.
    @article{34991aaef05641e6acc0a97a0e998b64,
    title = "The nature of publishing and assessment in geography and environmental studies: evidence from the research assessment exercise 2008",
    abstract = "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.",
    keywords = "RAE, Output types, Peer review, Bibliometrics",
    author = "Keith Richards and Mike Batty and Kevin Edwards and Allan Findlay and Giles Foody and Lynne Frostick and Kelvyn Jones and Roger Lee and David Livingstone and Terry Marsden and Judith Petts and Chris Philo and David Simon and Susan Smith and David Thomas",
    note = "dc.publisher: Wiley-Blackwell",
    year = "2009",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00908.x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "41",
    pages = "231--243",
    journal = "Area",
    issn = "0004-0894",
    publisher = "Wiley",
    number = "3",

    }

    Richards, K, Batty, M, Edwards, K, Findlay, A, Foody, G, Frostick, L, Jones, K, Lee, R, Livingstone, D, Marsden, T, Petts, J, Philo, C, Simon, D, Smith, S & Thomas, D 2009, 'The nature of publishing and assessment in geography and environmental studies: evidence from the research assessment exercise 2008', Area, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00908.x

    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 journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The nature of publishing and assessment in geography and environmental studies: evidence from the research assessment exercise 2008

    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

    N1 - dc.publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

    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

    M3 - Article

    VL - 41

    SP - 231

    EP - 243

    JO - Area

    JF - Area

    SN - 0004-0894

    IS - 3

    ER -