a national research assessment exercise that is driven by citation metrics, whereas others rely on peer review [@Hicks2012]. In particular, the United Kingdom (UK) has a long tradition of research assessment that relies on peer review, starting with the first assessment exercise in 1986. The latest assessment exercise, referred to as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), took place in 2014. It was followed by a detailed report, known as the *Metric Tide* report [@Wilsdon2015], that critically examined the possible role of citation metrics in the REF. It concluded that “\[m\]etrics should support, not supplant, expert judgement” [@Wilsdon2015 p. viii]. To support this conclusion, the report provided statistical evidence of the lack of agreement between metrics and peer review. Here, we re-examine the statistical evidence for this conclusion. The *Metric Tide* report also offered other arguments to support the above conclusion. It argued that metrics are contested among academics, and should therefore not be used, whereas peer review commands widespread support. Moreover, metrics may create perverse incentives. We do not consider these arguments further in this paper, and restrict ourselves to the statistical argument presented in the *Metric Tide*. Of course, the other arguments should play a role in the broader 