@Adams2008 also analysed the 2001 RAE results, although their focus was on which granularity of field-normalised citations works best. They found a reasonably high correlation of about $0.7$ for Psychology, $0.6$ for Physics, and only $0.5$ for Biological Sciences. Finally, @Butler2009 found a reasonable correlation ($R^2 \approx 0.5 \text{--} 0.6$, $R \approx 0.7 \text{--} 0.8$) for Political Science using the average number of citations.

In 2008, the results of the RAE were more structured. Rather than providing overall scores for institutions per UoA, a so-called quality profile was provided[^5]. The quality profile offered more detailed information on the proportion of outputs that were awarded $1$–$4$ stars. This enabled a more detailed analysis, since the measure was much more fine grained than the overall outcome. In addition, it allowed a clear distinction between size-dependent and size-independent results. Previously, only the overall results were announced, and the extent to which the results were size-dependent or size-independent was unclear. Most studies found that larger institutions generally did better in RAEs, implying a certain type of size-dependent component, but this was never entirely clear. From 2008 onwards, the results were announced as a proportion of outputs that were awarded a certain number of stars, 