|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Dan S. Rickman (Oklahoma State University); John V. Winters (Oklahoma State University) |
| Abstract: | In this paper, authors and institutions are ranked based on the number of publications in ten core regional science journals during the period 2010-2014. Alternative rankings are constructed by considering only publications in the top four of the ten journals and also by adjusting for journal impact factors. Two impact factors are calculated for each regional science journal. The first is based on citations by the other nine core regional science journals, and the second by citations from all journals in the database Scopus. Discussion is included regarding the patterns and consistency of the rankings across alternative criteria. Comparisons also are made to previous regional science publication rankings of authors and institutions. |
| Keywords: | Regional Science, Urban Economics, Economic Geography, University Rankings |
| JEL: | R00 |
| Date: | 2015–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:okl:wpaper:1603&r=sog |
| By: | David L. Anderson (Queen's University); John Tressler (University of Waikato) |
| Abstract: | This paper focuses on the stability of rankings of academics by research productivity in the context of short-term decision making. In particular, the growing use of national research assessment exercises (NRAE) has increased interest in identifying the contributions of individual researchers to an assessment unit’s output and ranking. Our primary finding is that despite statistical evidence of a high degree of rank stability across a number of plausible journal weighting schemes, the journal selection process is of great importance to individual researchers. This applies with particular force to academics working within a NRAE environment based on individual assessment such as New Zealand’s PBRF. |
| Keywords: | research measurement; journal ranking schemes; time pattern of citations |
| JEL: | A14 C81 I23 J24 |
| Date: | 2015–10–23 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wai:econwp:15/10&r=sog |
| By: | Aldo Geuna (Department of Economics; Statistics Cognetti De Martiis, University of Torino); Matteo Piolatto (Department of Social and Political Studies, University of Milan) |
| Abstract: | This paper provides a comparative analysis of the development of the UK and Italian university research funding systems with a special focus on Peer Review-Based Research Assessment (PRBRA) and its cost. Much of the debate surrounding the value of performance-based allocation systems hinges on the disadvantages versus the benefits of their implementation, and there is very little evidence on either their absolute cost or their cost relative to other allocation systems. Our objective is to fill this gap, collating the best possible estimates of the costs of alternative research funding methods to inform the ongoing policy debate. First, we compare funding in the UK and Italy during the period 2005-2012 and analyze the development of performance-based allocation in the two systems. Second, based on public reports and documents collected from universities, we discuss the public agency and university costs of RAE2008 and REF2014 and provide some estimates for VQR2012. We find that RAE2008 costs accounted for less than 1% of the total performance allocation in the related period while the VQR2012 efficiency ratio is estimated at around 2.5%. Finally, we compare the costs and efficiency ratios of PRBRA with metrics-based assessment and Research Council allocations and show that costs increase going from metrics to PRBRA to Research Council allocation. |
| Keywords: | Higher Education Policy, Public Funding, Research Assessment, University Research challenges, public finance, financialisation, innovation |
| JEL: | I2 Z18 H5 |
| Date: | 2015–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:sru:ssewps:2015-27&r=sog |