{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,8,2]],"date-time":"2025-08-02T17:39:10Z","timestamp":1754156350405,"version":"3.41.2"},"reference-count":8,"publisher":"Emerald","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2015,4,13]],"date-time":"2015-04-13T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1428883200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/site-policies"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2015,4,13]]},"abstract":"\n Purpose<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 The purpose of this paper is to encourage discussion about the potential role of metrics in research assessment. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 The paper considers the results of the UK\u2019s 2014 Research Excellence Framework, and the potential of metrics to reduce the size of future exercises. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Findings<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 The paper suggests that a battery of non-robust metrics selected by the higher education institutions could support a greatly reduced peer-reviewed exercise. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Practical implications<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 Policy makers should reconsider the role of metrics in research assessment. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Originality\/value<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 The paper provides an alternative vision of the role of metrics in research assessment, and will be of interest to policy makers, bibliometricians, and anyone interested in HEI research assessment.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1108\/oir-01-2015-0021","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2015,4,2]],"date-time":"2015-04-02T11:49:19Z","timestamp":1427975359000},"page":"265-269","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":12,"title":["Finding \u201cgood enough\u201d metrics for the UK\u2019s research excellence framework"],"prefix":"10.1108","volume":"39","author":[{"given":"David","family":"Stuart","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"140","reference":[{"key":"key2021071513592892700_b1","unstructured":"Priem, J.\n , \n Taraborelli, D.\n , \n Groth, P.\n and \n Neylon, C.\n (2010), \u201cAltmetrics: a manifesto\u201d, available at: http:\/\/altmetrics.org\/manifesto\/ (accessed 15 January 2015)."},{"key":"key2021071513592892700_b2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Editorial: alternative metrics\n (2012), \u201cEditorial: alternative metrics\u201d, \n Nature Materials\n , Vol. 11 No. 907, p. 20, available at: www.nature.com\/nmat\/journal\/v11\/n11\/full\/nmat3485.html (accessed 15 January 2015).","DOI":"10.1038\/nmat3485"},{"key":"key2021071513592892700_b3","unstructured":"HM Treasury\n (2006), \u201cPre-budget report: December\u201d, HM Treasury, available at: www.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/272403\/6984.pdf (accessed 14 January 2015)."},{"key":"key2021071513592892700_b4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Li, J.\n , \n Sanderson, M.\n , \n Willet, P.\n , \n Norris, M.\n and \n Oppenheim, C.\n (2010), \u201cRanking of library and information science researchers: comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments\u201d, \n Journal of Informetrics\n , Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 554-563.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.joi.2010.06.005"},{"key":"key2021071513592892700_b5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Martin, B.R.\n (2011), \u201cThe research excellence framework and the \u2018impact agenda\u2019: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?\u201d, \n Research Evaluation\n , Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 247-254.","DOI":"10.3152\/095820211X13118583635693"},{"key":"key2021071513592892700_b6","unstructured":"REF \u201cintensity\u201d table\n (2014), \u201cREF \u2018intensity\u2019 table\u201d, Times Higher Education, 19 December, available at: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk\/download?ac=26910 (accessed 15 January 2015)."},{"key":"key2021071513592892700_b7","unstructured":"Sayer, D.\n (2014), \u201cFive reasons why the REF is not fit for purpose\u201d, The Guardian, 15 December, available at: www.theguardian.com\/higher-education-network\/2014\/dec\/15\/research-excellence-framework-five-reasons-not-fit-for-purpose (accessed 14 January 2015)."},{"key":"key2021071513592892700_b8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Strathern, M.\n (1997), \u201cImproving ratings\u2019: audit in the British university system\u201d, \n European Review\n , Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 305-321.","DOI":"10.1002\/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3<305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4"}],"container-title":["Online Information Review"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emeraldinsight.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1108\/OIR-01-2015-0021","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/OIR-01-2015-0021\/full\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/OIR-01-2015-0021\/full\/html","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,24]],"date-time":"2025-07-24T22:41:59Z","timestamp":1753396919000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emerald.com\/oir\/article\/39\/2\/265-269\/321479"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2015,4,13]]},"references-count":8,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2015,4,13]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1108\/OIR-01-2015-0021"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/oir-01-2015-0021","relation":{},"ISSN":["1468-4527"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"1468-4527"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2015,4,13]]}}}