Skip to main content

UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?

Abstract

A longitudinal analysis of UK science covering almost 20 years revealed in the years prior to a Research Assessment Exercise (RAE 1992, 1996 and 2001) three distinct bibliometric patterns, that can be interpreted in terms of scientists’ responses to the principal evaluation criteria applied in a RAE. When in the RAE 1992 total publications counts were requested, UK scientists substantially increased their article production. When a shift in evaluation criteria in the RAE 1996 was announced from ‘quantity’ to ‘quality’, UK authors gradually increased their number of papers in journals with a relatively high citation impact. And during 1997–2000, institutions raised their number of active research staff by stimulating their staff members to collaborate more intensively, or at least to co-author more intensively, although their joint paper productivity did not. This finding suggests that, along the way towards the RAE 2001, evaluated units in a sense shifted back from ‘quality’ to ‘quantity’. The analysis also observed a slight upward trend in overall UK citation impact, corroborating conclusions from an earlier study. The implications of the findings for the use of citation analysis in the RAE are briefly discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bence, V., Oppenheim, C. (2004). The role of academic journal publications in the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Learned Publishing, 17: 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Butler, L. (2002). A list of published papers is no measure of value. Nature, 419: 877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313: 411–413.

    Google Scholar 

  4. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430: 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lipsett, A., Fazackerley, A. (2005). RAE shifts focus from prestige journals. Times Higher Education Supplement, 22 July.

  6. Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., Van Leeuwen, Th. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33: 381–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Seglen, P. O. (1994). Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring Science. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (2004) (eds). Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht (the Netherlands): Kluwer Academic Publishers, 19–50.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Watkins, D. (2005). Authors per paper. Sigmetrics Digest, 19–20 May 2005-Special Issue (#2005-77).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henk F. Moed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moed, H.F. UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?. Scientometrics 74, 153–161 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0108-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Annual Growth Rate
  • Citation Impact
  • Corporate Address
  • World Share
  • Research Assessment Exercise