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

doi: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

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 journal › Article › peer-review

16 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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	231-243
Number of pages	13
Journal	Area
Volume	41
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00908.x
Publication status	Published - 2009

Keywords

RAE
Output types
Peer review
Bibliometrics

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00908.x

Cite this

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, 41(3), 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00908.x

@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 {\textquoteleft}impact{\textquoteright}, 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-Blackwell",

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

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

SN - 0004-0894

VL - 41

SP - 231

EP - 243

JO - Area

JF - Area

IS - 3

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this