--- abstract: 'We counted the citations received in one year (1998) by each staff member in each of 38 university psychology departments in the United Kingdom. We then averaged these counts across individuals within each department and correlated the averages with the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) grades awarded to the same departments in 1996 and 2001. The correlations were extremely high (up to +0.91). This suggests that whatever the merits and demerits of the RAE process and citation counting as methods of evaluating research quality, the two approaches measure broadly the same thing. Since citation counting is both more cost-effective and more transparent than the present system and gives similar results, there is a prima facie case for incorporating citation counts into the process, either alone or in conjunction with other measures. Some of the limitations of citation counting are discussed and some methods for minimising these are proposed. Many of the factors that dictate caution in judging individuals by their citations tend to average out when whole departments are compared.' altloc: - http://psyserver.pc.rhbnc.ac.uk/citations.pdf chapter: ~ commentary: ~ commref: ~ confdates: ~ conference: ~ confloc: ~ contact_email: ~ creators_id: - 3788 - '' creators_name: - family: Smith given: Andy T honourific: Dr lineage: '' - family: Eysenck given: Michael honourific: Prof lineage: '' date: 2002-06 date_type: published datestamp: 2003-01-30 department: Psychology dir: disk0/00/00/27/49 edit_lock_since: ~ edit_lock_until: ~ edit_lock_user: ~ editors_id: [] editors_name: [] eprint_status: archive eprintid: 2749 fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png;/2749/1/citations.pdf full_text_status: public importid: ~ institution: 'University of London, Royal Holloway' isbn: ~ ispublished: unpub issn: ~ item_issues_comment: [] item_issues_count: 0 item_issues_description: [] item_issues_id: [] item_issues_reported_by: [] item_issues_resolved_by: [] item_issues_status: [] item_issues_timestamp: [] item_issues_type: [] keywords: 'research assessment exercise, rae, united kingdom, impact factor, citation analysis, scientometrics' lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:55:08 latitude: ~ longitude: ~ metadata_visibility: show note: |- Westney, Lynn C. Hattendorf (1998) Historical Rankings of Science and Technology: A Citationist Perspective. The Journal of the Association for History and Computing, Vol. I, No. 1., June 1998 http://mcel.pacificu.edu/history/jahcI1/Westney/Westney.htm number: ~ pagerange: ~ pubdom: TRUE publication: ~ publisher: ~ refereed: FALSE referencetext: | Chapman, A. J. (1989). Assessing research: citation-count shortcomings. The Psychologist, 8, 336-344. Chubin, D. E. & Hackett, E. J. (1990) Augmenting peer review: The place of research evaluation. Chapter 6 of: Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press 165-190 Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186. Rushton, J. P. (1984). Evaluating research eminence in psychology: The construct validity of citation counts. Bulletin of The British Psychological Society, 37, 33-36 relation_type: [] relation_uri: [] reportno: ~ rev_number: 12 series: ~ source: ~ status_changed: 2007-09-12 16:46:28 subjects: - comp-sci-stat-model - peer-review succeeds: ~ suggestions: ~ sword_depositor: ~ sword_slug: ~ thesistype: ~ title: The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology type: techreport userid: 63 volume: ~