Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 26, 2026
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment
Kushwanth Koya1, Gobinda Chowdhury1
1iSchool @ Department of Computers and Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Pandon Building, Camden Street, Northumbria University, Newcastle City Campus, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom.
Purpose:
There is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs) make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies.
Design And Methodology:
To examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom's recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF's results and HEFCE's funding allocations.
Findings:
A world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles.
Practical Implications:
The findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The findings may also influence future REF submission strategies in HEIs and ascertain that the impact rating of the journals is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of research in every discipline, and this may have a significant influence on the future of scholarly communications in general.
Originality:
According to the author's knowledge, this is the first time an investigation has estimated the monetary value of a good research output.
Related Concept Videos
01:15Nursing Evaluation
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
03:00Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
01:09Empirical Method to Interpret Standard Deviation
This rule is used widely in statistics to calculate the proportion of data values...
01:09Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test