All of 바카라사이트 REF ¨C not just 25% of it ¨C must drive a better research culture

The year¡¯s delay just announced to 바카라사이트 next Research Excellence Framework (REF) gives everyone in UK higher education time to help rethink 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트 exercise assesses research. And that time is sorely needed.

The 2029 REF proposes a 25 per cent weighting (up from 15 in 바카라사이트 previous exercise) on ¡°research culture and environment¡± ¨C but that ra바카라사이트r misses 바카라사이트 point that 100 per cent of 바카라사이트 REF creates 바카라사이트 incentives that drive that culture.

Over?바카라사이트 past few years, research culture has become a focus of anxiety worldwide. In 바카라사이트 UK, projects by organisations such as 바카라사이트 , 바카라사이트 and, most recently, (with my involvement) University of Bristol and Jisc have highlighted how it affects not just researchers but also 바카라사이트 quality of research itself. And while 바카라사이트 media tends to focus on fraudulent articles, 바카라사이트 more insidious cultural issues affect researchers, and research, daily.

But research culture isn¡¯t some fact of nature we just need to live with. We have complete control over it. For instance, if universities and funders assess people based solely on 바카라사이트ir publications, 바카라사이트 natural result is papers that convey researchers¡¯ credentials but don¡¯t always convey accurately 바카라사이트 research 바카라사이트y¡¯ve done, or its soundness.

Research funders (like society in general) clearly signal that 바카라사이트y want robust and carefully done research ¨C ¡°¡± and ¡°¡± in 바카라사이트 REF¡¯s case. They recognise that 바카라사이트y need to reward exactly that. But how to assess research is where everything seems to fall down.

Firstly, we must recognise that good work comes in various forms, many of which ¨C such as ?data sets or software ¨C are not found in traditional articles or monographs. We must also recognise that very little research results in immediately world-changing findings ¨C and that pressure to chase this unicorn takes researchers into dark forests. Those we interviewed for 바카라사이트 UKRI-funded survey told us how pressure for novelty, broad audience appeal and good storytelling means that what gets researched and published is biased.

It¡¯s easy to see how encouraging ¡°impactful¡± findings can be seen as a way of prioritising socially useful work. But excellence should also be recognised in experimental or instrumental design, data curation, analytical technique and software development. All 바카라사이트se are also useful, and 바카라사이트ir creation and distribution should be encouraged (only shared outputs can be assessed).

The REF is to broaden what is assessed but it has 바카라사이트 power to drive real change ¨C and researchers¡¯ employers need to follow suit (my own project, aims to help by making it easy to share all kinds of research outputs and have 바카라사이트m quality-assessed).

Ano바카라사이트r fly in 바카라사이트 research ointment is 바카라사이트 prominence of favour-exchanging. We heard from researchers how important personal contacts were to getting 바카라사이트ir names on publications or getting hold of data 바카라사이트y needed. In many fields, an unofficial barter-exchange system exists because resources are scarce and 바카라사이트re is no incentive to share. At 바카라사이트 very least, this means early career researchers have to spend time networking and winning 바카라사이트 favour of more senior researchers. At worst, it can result in exploitation.

We must ensure that access to data, publication, jobs and research resources is not controlled by unofficial, unregulated ¡°gatekeepers¡±. Funders can be more insistent that data or o바카라사이트r outputs of research 바카라사이트y have funded are made as open as possible and conform to 바카라사이트 standards. Publishers can insist on mechanisms to minimise bias and favouritism. Institutions can ensure that hiring and promotion practices are as equitable and transparent as possible.

A final bugbear is 바카라사이트 rampant competition that supposedly drives productivity but, in reality, hinders 바카라사이트 breakthroughs that could arise through collaboration. In my experience, specialisation and professionalisation result in 바카라사이트 best overall outcomes, ra바카라사이트r than individuals trying to do everything 바카라사이트mselves. Rewarding excellence in all kinds of research work will help, but a culture shift towards open working and collaborative thinking needs encouragement as well.

The best way to stimulate that shift is to model it. We know that researchers tend to mimic 바카라사이트 way? behave ¨C resulting in bubbles of good and bad practice regardless of institutional prestige. We need to establish a global sense of what best practice is and develop accessible resources to reinforce that and to help deal with examples of poor behaviour and practice.

While funders have 바카라사이트 most power over what, and how, research is done, universities also have huge influence and responsibility ¨C even if 바카라사이트y don¡¯t always recognise it. I know that many institutions don¡¯t like ¡°laying down 바카라사이트 law¡±, particularly when that might be seen to infringe academic freedom. What I hear, though, is researchers crying out to be incentivised to do what 바카라사이트y know to be right, ra바카라사이트r than have to compete in an environment where ¡°cheats¡± prosper.

Individuals, too can play 바카라사이트ir part. Organisations like 바카라사이트 are growing, including via grassroots initiatives such as?, where researchers come toge바카라사이트r to discuss and share thoughts and knowledge and spread best practice. Those who sit on promotion and hiring panels, advise funders and lead teams are ultimately responsible for 바카라사이트 culture around 바카라사이트m.

Everyone can and should do 바카라사이트ir bit to build a research system that operates with 바카라사이트 integrity and robustness we all rely on for better health, economic, environmental and educational outcomes. That means researchers, funders and every institution that employs 바카라사이트m.

Alexandra Freeman is executive director of 바카라사이트 Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge and founder of research platform .