ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2026
Distortions from Unbiased Noise in Sequential Review: Why the Research Excellence Framework Needs a Noise Audit.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Expert judgement is inherently noisy, but the consequences of this variability are often underestimated. Here, I examine the U.K. Research Excellence Framework (REF) as a case study illustrating how judgement noise can interact with structural features of a multi-stage evaluation system. Simulations show that noise in both internal departmental reviews and REF panel reviews, in conjunction with the bounded REF rating scale, produces systematic underestimates of the highest-performing departments. Panel noise, rather than internal noise, had a disproportionate impact on department rankings, with even moderate noise producing severe distortions. The case of REF demonstrates that noise embedded in sequential evaluation, for example, in hiring and grant review decisions, does not "cancel out," but instead can propagate in potentially surprising ways. At a policy level, these results underscore the need for a noise audit of REF panel ratings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.