correlation of $0.68$. For the 1992 exercise, overall, both size-dependent and size-independent metrics correlated reasonably well with peer review in quite a number of fields. Most authors recommended that the RAE should take metrics into account, for example, as an initial suggestion, which can then be revised based on peer review.

In the 1996 RAE, full publication lists were no longer collected [@Bence2005]. In 2001, results were announced as rankings, and institutions also received an overall score of $1$–$5^*$. @Smith2002 analysed both the 1996 and the 2001 RAE and found a correlation on the order of $0.9$ for the average number of citations in Psychology for both exercises. @Clerides2011 also analysed both the 1996 and the 2001 RAE and found a correlation of about $R \approx 0.7$ ($R^2 \approx 0.5$) using the total number of high impact journal articles. @Norris2003 analysed Archaeology and found correlations of about 0.8 for both size-dependent and size-independent metrics. @Mahdi2008 analysed all units of assessments (UoAs; i.e. fields) and found that a number of fields showed substantial correlations on the order of $0.7$–$0.8$ (e.g. Clinical Lab. Sciences, Psychology, Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, and Business & Management) using the average number of citations per paper. 