{"title":"2001年护理研究评估工作分析","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":"{\"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}","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}
The nursing research assessment exercise 2001: An analysis
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
