Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pitfalls in assessing research performance by grant income

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The strategy of judging the quality of scientific research by the level of funding it attracts is critically examined. It is argued that an indes such as per captita research income, which is based on grant-giver peer review, yields an unsatisfactory measure of scientific performance. It fails to fulfil a basic requirement of a performance indicator, namely, that it should relate outputs to inputs. It has intrinsically low validity, and is strongly confounced with a variety of extraneous factors that are unrelated to research performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. Bentham, An evaluation of the UGC's ratings of the research of British university geography departments,Area, 19 (1987) 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. Gillett, Serious anomalies in the UGC comparative evaluation of the research performance of psychology departments,Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40 (1987), 42–49.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Gillett, The UGC evaluation: A rejoinder to Philip Levy,Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40 (1987) 361–364.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. Gillett, A sampling artifact in the UGC evaluation of research performance,British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42 (1989) 127–132.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Gillett, M. Aitkenhead, Rank injustice in academic research,Nature, 327 (1987) 381–382.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C.H. Lloyd, The research productivity of UK dental schools in the years 1980–85,Medical Science Research, 15 (1987) 349–353.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Platt, Research policy in British higher education and its sociological assumptions,Sociology, 22 (1988) 513–529.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. Smith, UGC research ratings: pass or fail?Area, 18 (1986) 247–250.

    Google Scholar 

  9. University Grants Committee,A Strategy for Higher Education into the 1990s, HMSO, London, p. 5.

  10. F.M. Lord, M.R. Novick,Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  11. H.J. Enhorn, R.M. Hogarth, Confidence in judgement: Persistence of the illusion of validity,Psychological Review, 85 (1978) 395–416.

    Google Scholar 

  12. University Grants Committee,University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators, UGC, London, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Leicester, LE1 7RH, Leicester, UK

    R. Gillett

Authors
  1. R. Gillett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gillett, R. Pitfalls in assessing research performance by grant income. Scientometrics 22, 253–263 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020000

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020000

Keywords

Search

Navigation