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, Susan Smith, David Simon, 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
Early online date22 Jun 2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2009

Keywords

  • RAE
  • output types
  • peer review
  • bibliometrics
  • future

Cite this

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; Smith, Susan; Simon, David; Thomas, David.

In: Area, Vol. 41, No. 3, 09.2009, p. 231-243.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Richards, K, Batty, M, Edwards, K, Findlay, A, Foody, G, Frostick, L, Jones, K, Lee, R, Livingstone, D, Marsden, T, Petts, J, Philo, C, Smith, S, Simon, D & 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
Richards, Keith ; Batty, Mike ; Edwards, Kevin ; Findlay, Allan ; Foody, Giles ; Frostick, Lynne ; Jones, Kelvyn ; Lee, Roger ; Livingstone, David ; Marsden, Terry ; Petts, Judith ; Philo, Chris ; Smith, Susan ; Simon, David ; 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{a1eb52742f9d4c49b03a3d88b22e7b92,
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, future",
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 Susan Smith and David Simon and David Thomas",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
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",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The nature of publishing and assessment in Geography and Environmental Studies

T2 - 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 - Smith, Susan

AU - Simon, David

AU - Thomas, David

PY - 2009/9

Y1 - 2009/9

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

KW - future

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 -