@article{Oswald:271312,
      recid = {271312},
      author = {Oswald, Andrew J.},
      title = {World-Leading Research and its Measurement },
      address = {2009-01-14},
      number = {2068-2018-2608},
      series = {WERP 887},
      pages = {20},
      month = {Jan},
      year = {2009},
      abstract = {Journalists and others have asked me whether the  favourable RAE 2008 results for UK economics are  believable. This is a fair question. It also opens up a  broader and more important one: how can we design a  bibliometric method to assess the quality (rather than  merely quantity) of a nation’s science? To try to address  this, I examine objective data on the world’s most  influential economics articles. I find that the United  Kingdom performed reasonably well over the 2001-2008  period. Of 450 genuinely world-leading journal articles,  the UK produced 10% of them -- and was the source of the  most-cited article in each of the Journal of Econometrics,  the International Economic Review, the Journal of Public  Economics, and the Rand Journal of Economics, and of the  second most-cited article in the Journal of Health  Economics. Interestingly, more than a quarter of these  world-leading UK articles came from outside the best-known  half-dozen departments. Thus the modern emphasis on ‘top’  departments and the idea that funding should be  concentrated in a few places may be mistaken. Pluralism may  help to foster iconoclastic ideas.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/271312},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.271312},
}