BMJ 2006;332:983-984 (29 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7548.983
Editorial
How should we rate research?
The UK's current system can be improved but shouldn't be discarded
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Last month the UK chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced in his annual budget speech that the government intends to simplify the way it funds academic research. Pending a consultation exercise through 2006, the government wishes to replace the United Kingdom's unique research assessment exercise (RAE).1 The most radical proposal is to scrap peer assessment of the quality of each university's research, a cornerstone of the exercise, and to introduce assessment based mainly on metricseffectively performance indicators.
Possible metrics include research income, publications, citations, and numbers of research students, all of which correlated well with scores achieved in previous exercises.1 Preparations for RAE2008 are well underway and will proceed as planned, but the exercise will now incorporate a shadow system, using metrics alongside the panel based peer review system. It is now entirely possible that the allocation of research funding after 2008 will be based on metrics assessment rather than the . . . [Full text of this article]
F D Richard Hobbs, professor
Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT
(f.d.r.hobbs@bham.ac.uk)
Paul M Stewart, professor
Department of Medicine, University of Birmingham

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Articles
-
Should we ditch impact factors?
- Richard Hobbs
BMJ 2007 334: 569.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
How should we rate research?: Counting number of publications may be best research performance measure
- Bruce G Charlton and Peter Andras
BMJ 2006 332: 1214-1215.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
-
How should we rate research?: Pedigree: paternity and progeny
- Woody Caan
BMJ 2006 332: 1215.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
-
Where next for the research assessment exercise?
- Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2006 332: 0.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
All change for funding of medical research in the United Kingdom
- Susan Mayor
BMJ 2006 332: 994.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
Academic medicine: a faltering engine
- Paul M Stewart
BMJ 2002 324: 437-438.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Luty, J, Arokiadass, S M R, Easow, J M, Anapreddy, J R
(2009). Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. J. Med. Ethics
35: 200-202
[Abstract]
[Full text]
-
Charlton, B. G, Andras, P.
(2006). How should we rate research?: Counting number of publications may be best research performance measure.. BMJ
332: 1214-1215
[Full text]
-
Caan, W.
(2006). How should we rate research?: Pedigree: paternity and progeny.. BMJ
332: 1215-1215
[Full text]
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
- Publications divided by research income to measure research efficacy
- Dietmar Fuchs
bmj.com, 28 Apr 2006
[Full text]
- Simply counting number of publications may be the best research performance measure
- Bruce G Charlton, et al.
bmj.com, 30 Apr 2006
[Full text]
- OUTCOME OF RESEARCH
- Nazar R DESSOUKI
bmj.com, 30 Apr 2006
[Full text]
- Rating research by scientific and clinical value
- Ellen C G Grant
bmj.com, 2 May 2006
[Full text]
- Pedigree, paternity and progeny.
- Woody Caan
bmj.com, 3 May 2006
[Full text]
- How should we rate conflict of interest?
- Trisha Greenhalgh
bmj.com, 4 May 2006
[Full text]
- Academic Medicine, not all is by all means rosy
- Jangu Banatvala, et al.
bmj.com, 30 May 2006
[Full text]