How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave?

Daniel Sgroi and Andrew Oswald

The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) from University of Warwick, Department of Economics

Abstract: Many governments wish to assess the quality of their universities. A prominent example is the UK’s new Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014. In the REF, peer-review panels will be provided with information on publications and citations. This paper suggests a way in which panels could choose the weights to attach to these two indicators. The analysis draws in an intuitive way on the concept of Bayesian updating (where citations gradually reveal information about the initially imperfectly-observed importance of the research). Our study should not be interpreted as the argument that only mechanistic measures ought to be used in a REF. JEL classification: I23 ; C11 ; O30

Keywords: University evaluation; RAE Research Assessment Exercise 2008; citations; bibliometrics; REF 2014 (Research Excellence Framework); Bayesian methods. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-sog
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/w ... s/2012/twerp_999.pdf

Related works:
Journal Article: How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave? (2013)
Working Paper: How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave? (2012)
Working Paper: How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave? (2012)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wrk:warwec:999

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) from University of Warwick, Department of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Margaret Nash ().