"The use of quantitative performance measures to assess the quality of university research is being introduced in Australia and the UK. This paper presents the case for maintaining a balanced approach. It argues that ‘metrics’ have their place, and can make the process more efficient and cost-effective, but that peer review must be retained as a central element in any research assessment exercise. The role of metrics is as ‘a trigger to the recognition of anomalies’, rather than as a straight replacement for peer review."