In 2002, I published an article in the Journal of Social Work, in which, based on my experience as an external assessor for the UK's RAE (Research Assessment Exercise), I raised concerns about lack of clarity in criteria used to review research. Susanne MacGregor responded to my original article in a subsequent edition of the Journal of Social Work. This article is a reply to that response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altman, D. G. (2002) `Poor-quality Medical Research: What Can Journals Do? , Journal of the American Medical Association287: 2765-2767 .
2.
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Barcelona, Spain, 14-16 September 2001.
3.
Gambrill, E. (2002) ` `I Am Not a Rubber Stamp': My Experience as a Non-UK RAE Advisor' , Journal of Social Work2(2): 169-185 .
4.
Godlee, F. and Jefferson, T. (1999) Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ Books .
5.
MacGregor, S. (2003) ` `We Did Not Simply Mimic Received Opinion': Response from the Chair of the Social Policy and Administration and Social Work RAE Panel to Eileen Gambrill's `I Am Not a Rubber Stamp' ' , Journal of Social Work3(1): 119-124 .
6.
Oxman, A. D. and Guyatt, G. H. (1993) `The Science of Reviewing Research', In K. S. Warren and F. Mosteller (eds) Doing More Good Than Harm: The Evaluation of Health Care Interventions, pp. 125-133. New York: New York Academy of Sciences .
