Normalization of peer-evaluation measures of group research quality across academic disciplines
Peer-evaluation-based measures of group research quality such as the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which do not employ bibliometric analyses, cannot directly avail of such methods to normalize research impact across disciplines. This is seen as a conspicuous flaw of such exercises and calls have been made to find a remedy. Here a simple, systematic solution is proposed based upon a mathematical model for the relationship between research quality and group quantity. This model manifests both the Matthew effect and a phenomenon akin to the Ringelmann effect and reveals the existence of two critical masses for each academic discipline: a lower value, below which groups are vulnerable, and an upper value beyond which the dependency of quality on quantity reduces and plateaus appear when the critical masses are large. A possible normalization procedure is then to pitch these plateaus at similar levels. We examine the consequences of this procedure at RAE for a multitude of academic disciplines, corresponding to a range of critical masses. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.
Year of publication: |
2011
|
---|---|
Authors: | Kenna, Ralph ; Berche, Bertrand |
Published in: |
Research Evaluation. - Oxford University Press, ISSN 0958-2029. - Vol. 20.2011, 2, p. 107-116
|
Publisher: |
Oxford University Press |
Saved in:
Online Resource
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
Kenna, Ralph, (2011)
-
Kenna, Ralph, (2011)
-
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK STABILITY: A CASE STUDY OF CITY TRANSIT
BERCHE, BERTRAND, (2012)
- More ...