ButlerL.McAllisterI. (2009) ‘Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science’, Political Studies Review, 7 (1), 3–17.
3.
CameronB.D. (2005) ‘Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data; Uses, Abuses, and Implications’, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5 (1), 105–25.
4.
Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS) (2005) Measures of Quality and Impact of Publicly Funded Research in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. CHASS Occasional Paper 2. Available from: http://www.chass.org.au/papers/PAP20051101JP.php [Accessed 23 October 2008].
5.
Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS) (2006) CHASS Bibliometrics Project, Political Science and History Panels, Report on Recommendations and Major Issues. Available from: http://www.chass.org.au/papers/PAP20061214CH.php [Accessed 23 October 2008].
6.
CreweI. (1987) Reputation, Research and Reality: The Publication Records of UK Departments of Politics 1978–84. Wivenhoe: University of Essex, Department of Government, Essex Papers in Politics and Government 44.
7.
CreweI.NorrisP. (1991) ‘British and American Journal Evaluation: Divergence or Convergence?’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 24 (2), 524–31.
8.
EvansJ. A. (2008) ‘Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship’, Science, 321, 395–9.
9.
GarandJ. C. (1990) ‘An Alternative Interpretation of Recent Political Science Journal Evaluations’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 23 (2), 448–51.
10.
GilesM.MizellF.PatersonD. (1989) ‘Political Scientists' Journal Evaluation Revisited’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 22 (3), 613–17.
11.
GilesM.WrightG. C. (1975) ‘Political Scientists' Evaluations of Sixty-Three Journals', PS: Political Science and Politics, 8 (2), 254–6.
12.
GoldsteinH.SpiegelhalterD. J. (1996) ‘League Tables and their Limitations: Statistical Issues in Comparisons of Institutional Performance’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 159 (3), 385–443.
13.
HazledineT.KurniawanC. (2005) ‘Efficiency of New Zealand Universities and the Impact of the Performance Based Research Fund’, New Zealand Economic Papers, 39 (2), 153–79.
14.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2007) Research Excellence Framework. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2007/07_34/ [Accessed 23 October 2008].
15.
HirschJ. (2005) ‘An Index to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Research Output’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–72.
16.
HixS. (2004) ‘A Global Ranking of Political Science Departments’, Political Studies Review, 2 (2), 293–313.
17.
JohnstonR. J. (2006) ‘The Death – or Dumbing Down – of the RAE’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33 (3), 321–3.
18.
JohnstonR. J. (2008a) ‘On Structuring Subjective Judgements: Originality, Significance and Rigour in RAE2008’, Higher Education Quarterly, 62 (1), 120–47.
19.
JohnstonR. J. (2008b) ‘Do You Want to be Counted or Subject to a Light Touch? Research Assessment in the UK and the Social Sciences – Continued’, Environment and Planning A, 40 (3), 507–14.
20.
Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research (2008) Citation Statistics: A Report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in Cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Available from: http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf [Accessed 23 October 2008].
21.
McLeanI.BlaisA.GarandJ. C.GilesM. (2009) ‘Comparative Journal Ratings: A Survey Report’, Political Studies Review, 7 (1), 18–38.
22.
ShoreC. (2008) ‘Audit Culture and Illiberal Governance: Universities and the Politics of Accountability’, Anthropological Theory, 8 (3), pp. 278–98.
