which was unambiguously size-independent.

@Norris2010 examined Library & Information Science, Anthropology, and Pharmacy in the 2008 RAE using the $h$-index (and a variant thereof) and total citation counts. They compared this to a weighted average of the results multiplied by the number of staff, clearly a size-dependent metric. @Norris2010 found a correlation of about 0.7 for Pharmacy, while Library & Information Science showed a correlation of only about 0.4, and Anthropology showed even a negative correlation. @Taylor2011 analysed Business & Management, Economics & Econometrics, and Accounting & Finance. They relied on a journal list from UK business schools to determine the proportion of publications in top journals and found a quite high correlation ($R^2 \approx 0.64 \text{--} 0.78$, $R \approx 0.80 \text{--} 0.88$) with the average rating. @Kelly2012 found a clear correlation ($R^2 = 0.83$, $R = 0.91$) for Sociology. They also used the proportion of publications in top journals and compared it to a weighted average of RAE results. @Mckay2012 found that most scholars in the field of Social Work, Social Policy & Administration did not necessarily submit their most highly cited work for evaluation. This study did not explicitly report how well citations match peer review. @Allen2013 replicated 