The nursing research assessment exercise 2001: An analysis

Denis Anthony
{"title":"The nursing research assessment exercise 2001: An analysis","authors":"Denis Anthony","doi":"10.1016/j.cein.2005.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The 2001 UK research assessment exercise (RAE) was explored for units of assessment (UoA) 10 (Nursing) and 11 (Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine). In nursing funding was the best predictor of high RAE ratings. Other factors that appear relevant are numbers of doctorates awarded and publications in prestigious journals and in those with high impact factors (IF). UoA 11 showed similar but not identical trends. Specific funding sources were more important than overall funds in UoA 11, and the journals with high ratings in UoA 10 did not necessarily score highly in UoA 11. Further the diversity of journals was higher in UoA 11.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":87580,"journal":{"name":"Clinical effectiveness in nursing","volume":"9 1","pages":"Pages 4-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cein.2005.09.001","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical effectiveness in nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361900406000045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

The 2001 UK research assessment exercise (RAE) was explored for units of assessment (UoA) 10 (Nursing) and 11 (Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine). In nursing funding was the best predictor of high RAE ratings. Other factors that appear relevant are numbers of doctorates awarded and publications in prestigious journals and in those with high impact factors (IF). UoA 11 showed similar but not identical trends. Specific funding sources were more important than overall funds in UoA 11, and the journals with high ratings in UoA 10 did not necessarily score highly in UoA 11. Further the diversity of journals was higher in UoA 11.

2001年护理研究评估工作分析
2001年英国研究评估工作(RAE)探讨了评估单位(UoA) 10(护理)和11(与医学相关的其他研究和专业)。护理经费是高RAE评分的最佳预测因子。其他相关的因素包括获得博士学位的数量以及在知名期刊和高影响因子(IF)期刊上发表的论文数量。UoA 11显示出类似但不完全相同的趋势。在UoA 11中,特定资金来源比总体资金来源更重要,并且在UoA 10中获得高评级的期刊在UoA 11中得分并不一定高。此外,UoA 11的期刊多样性更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信