FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2073037216> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2073037216 abstract "• Summary: In the United Kingdom a formal assessment of all universities’ research is undertaken through the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) approximately once every five years. The results are published and lead to each academic unit receiving a ranking (on a seven-point scale). Funding for research follows these rankings. Initiatives designed to review research quality have an obligation to clearly describe criteria on which assessments are made. Critical appraisals of published material prepared by RAE review panels should be based on criteria that permit rigorous appraisal of different kinds of publications. Criteria for reviewing the quality of different kinds of research are readily available. In empirical studies, such critical appraisals would reveal the likelihood that the research method used could answer questions raised. Efforts made by a non-UK adviser appointed to the 2001 RAE Panel for Social Policy and Administration and Social Work to identify criteria used by RAE organizers to review different kinds of publications were unsuccessful, resulting in the conclusion that panel members do not have a written description of specific criteria they share and that they share with others which describe exactly how they assess the quality of different kinds of research studies (e.g. controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, qualitative research and so on) and the quality of conceptual work. The troubling implications of this finding are discussed. • Findings: No clear criteria allowing rigorous appraisal of different kinds of research were provided by the RAE in spite of repeated requests for the information. Rankings by RAE panel members seem to be made based on vague criteria and surrogates such as ‘esteem indicators’ (e.g. papers presented at conferences) that may not reflect quality of research. Productivity does not necessarily reflect research quality. Without the use of criteria that yield rigorous appraisals of research quality in the review process, it is likely that stereotypes about which programs produce the highest-quality research will simply be perpetuated. Lack of clear criteria for reviewing research seems to encourage preparation of propagandistic promotional text replete with grand claims, including opinions stated as facts. Government bodies responsible for distributing research funds should give careful consideration of how to fairly and accurately evaluate research quality. At least in this area, it seems that such consideration has not occurred. • Applications: Lack of success in finding clear descriptions of criteria led to the troubling conclusion that no such specific criteria were used. The implications of these findings are concerning. They question the basis upon which research funding is allocated in the UK and indicate that if future rankings of research are undertaken, they should be based on explicit and open published criteria that permit an accurate assessment of the match between questions raised and methods used to pursue answers, available to all parties well in advance. Without such criteria staff lose an opportunity to hone their critical appraisal skills, rigorously appraise their research and candidly examine outcomes." @default.
• W2073037216 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2073037216 creator A5086407574 @default.
• W2073037216 date "2002-08-01" @default.
• W2073037216 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2073037216 title "‘I Am Not a Rubber Stamp’" @default.
• W2073037216 cites W163214114 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W1964796004 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W1982735208 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W1994295545 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W2041064844 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W2066685841 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W2075585362 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W2096430938 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W2147581820 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W2156500065 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W2172949885 @default.
• W2073037216 cites W4293775847 @default.
• W2073037216 doi "https://doi.org/10.1177/146801730200200204" @default.
• W2073037216 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2073037216 type Work @default.
• W2073037216 sameAs 2073037216 @default.
• W2073037216 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W2073037216 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2073037216 hasAuthorship W2073037216A5086407574 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C152541439 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C189430467 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C2777861003 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C2778447849 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C2778755073 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C522453465 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C111472728 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C119857082 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C120912362 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C121332964 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C138885662 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C142724271 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C144024400 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C152541439 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C15744967 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C162324750 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C17744445 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C187736073 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C189430467 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C199539241 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C204787440 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C2777861003 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C2778447849 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C2778755073 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C2779530757 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C36289849 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C39549134 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C41008148 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C522453465 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C62520636 @default.
• W2073037216 hasConceptScore W2073037216C71924100 @default.
• W2073037216 hasLocation W20730372161 @default.
• W2073037216 hasOpenAccess W2073037216 @default.
• W2073037216 hasPrimaryLocation W20730372161 @default.
• W2073037216 hasRelatedWork W2139418170 @default.
• W2073037216 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2073037216 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2073037216 magId "2073037216" @default.
• W2073037216 workType "article" @default.