bibliometric interest. In addition to allowing two publications to be nominated for assessment by the institutions, the exercise also collected information on the total number of publications [@Bence2005]. No less than seven studies appeared that compared the outcomes of the 1992 RAE to bibliometrics. @Taylor1994 analysed Business & Management and found a clear correlation[^4] based on journal publications ($R^2 \approx 0.8$, $R \approx 0.9$). @Oppenheim1995 analysed Library & Information Management, and two years later, @Oppenheim1997 considered Anatomy, Archaeology, and Genetics. These two studies used both total citation counts and average citation counts per staff and found clear correlations on the order of $0.7$–$0.8$ for both size-dependent and size-independent metrics and all analysed fields. Only for Anatomy, the size-independent metric was less clearly aligned with peer review outcomes, with a correlation of $R \approx 0.5$. [@LimBanSeng1995] also analysed Library & Information Management and found even higher correlations on the order of $0.9$ using both average citations and total citations. The correlation found by @Colman1995 for Politics was lower, at only $0.5$, where they used the number of publications in high impact journals per staff as a metric. Finally, @Thomas1998 analysed Business & Management Studies using a journal-based score and found a 