This paper concerns the relationship between the assessment of the research of individual academics by peer or expert review teams with a variety of bibliometric schemes based on journal quality weights. Specifically, for a common group of economists from New Zealand departments of economics the relationship between Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) Research Output measures for those submitting new research portfolios in 2006 are compared with evaluations of journal-based research over the 2000–2005 assessment period. This comparison identifies the journal weighting schemes that appear most similar to PBRF peer evaluations. The paper provides an indication of the ‘power or aggressiveness’ of PBRF evaluations in terms of the weighting given to quality. The implied views of PBRF peer review teams are also useful in assessing common assumptions made in evaluating journal based research.