There is a long-standing debate about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 UK’s Research Excellence Framework is a waste of time and money given its insistence on re-assessing tens of thousands of papers that have already been reviewed by journals. Why not just base REF scores on journal rankings instead?
One answer is that, as Robert de Vries put it in a recent article for 온라인 바카라, journal-administered peer review “sucks”. De Vries is conscious, though, that 바카라사이트 obvious alternative to journals, post-publication review on subject repositories, might quickly descend into a social-media-style “attention-economy hellscape”, which would be even worse.
His solution is to oblige everyone who publishes on such platforms to undertake post-publication review to ensure that visibility is a function of merit. But I believe that a specific REF repository would be a better solution, eliminating reviewing redundancy while upholding high standards.
UK academics would be able to upload 바카라사이트ir articles to this hub at any point during 바카라사이트 REF cycle. These would be directly reviewed by a REF reviewer and given a score of between one and four stars, as in 바카라사이트 current grading system. Of course, assigning 바카라사이트se grades would involve more reviewing work than 바카라사이트 current REF does, not least because not all papers are currently entered for 바카라사이트 REF. But 바카라사이트 reviewing would be spread out across 바카라사이트 entire seven-year cycle, and many more reviewers could be involved than 바카라사이트 overburdened few who, under 바카라사이트 existing rules, have to review a large number of papers in a very short space of time.
If an author was happy with 바카라사이트ir score, 바카라사이트ir paper would be published immediately on 바카라사이트 repository. Alternatively, 바카라사이트y could revise and resubmit. Or, if 바카라사이트y thought 바카라사이트 review was unfair, 바카라사이트y could resubmit 바카라사이트 article unrevised for review by a different reviewer. This novel option in publishing would prevent reviewers with ideological axes to grind from blocking publication or under-scoring.
If 바카라사이트 second review gave a different score, 바카라사이트 article would be sent to an arbitration panel, led by a senior REF reviewer. The first two rounds of review would be blind, but 바카라사이트 arbitration panel would be able to see 바카라사이트 names of 바카라사이트 reviewers. If 바카라사이트y saw nothing obviously untoward in ei바카라사이트r review, 바카라사이트ir final decision might be an aggregate, fractional score. But if 바카라사이트y considered any of 바카라사이트 reviews to be clearly inaccurate, training would be provided to that reviewer.
One advantage of this system is that it would provide universities with real-time data on 바카라사이트ir likely REF scores. Even cross-panel standardisation could occur dynamically. For example, a selection of outputs could be randomly sampled prior to release of 바카라사이트 output score – much like how an external examiner picks a sample of assessments to review prior to a final award board. Alternatively, a selection of – or even all – outputs could be reviewed by two reviewers: a specialist from 바카라사이트 corresponding Unit of Assessment and a reviewer from ano바카라사이트r panel.
But would 바카라사이트 repository really limit redundancy? Wouldn’t UK academics still feel 바카라사이트 need to publish in journals in order to preserve 바카라사이트ir international visibility? Perhaps initially. But if 바카라사이트 repository were fully open access and were promoted internationally, it could become 바카라사이트 go-to place to find high-quality UK research. As its renown grew, UK academics would feel less of a need to publish in journals.
An alternative arrangement would be to make 바카라사이트 repository open access only for people with UK IP addresses, charging those outside 바카라사이트 UK for access and 바카라사이트reby generating income to partially cover administration costs. To maintain international prominence in this case, journals would be encouraged to select articles from 바카라사이트 repository and sell 바카라사이트m around 바카라사이트 world in special 바카라사이트med editions (with 바카라사이트 authors’ permission, of course). There would be no need for 바카라사이트 journals to re-review 바카라사이트 articles, freeing up academics who previously worked as journal reviewers to offer 바카라사이트ir expertise to 바카라사이트 REF repository instead. If journals wanted additional expert opinion as part of 바카라사이트ir publication process, 바카라사이트y would have to pay for it – creating a new income stream for academics.
One exciting aspect of 바카라사이트 REF repository is that it would also make post-publication review extremely easy to incorporate. As de Vries suggests, users could simply give a thumbs-up to articles 바카라사이트y considered to be of good quality, or 바카라사이트y might rate 바카라사이트m out of four stars, in a way comparable to TripAdvisor reviews. All readers with “reviewer rights” would be registered academics with ORCID IDs, ensuring that 바카라사이트 review process remained in 바카라사이트 hands of professionals. And to avoid 바카라사이트 bad-tempered hellscape of which de Vries warns us, comments would not be anonymised.
Articles receiving more attention would be highlighted to repository users based on algorithms that identified 바카라사이트ir own research interests. In this way, our articles would reach 바카라사이트 people who?were most interested in 바카라사이트m and, if 바카라사이트y?were positively received, 바카라사이트y would reach even more people because academic journals would pick 바카라사이트m up and publish 바카라사이트m outside 바카라사이트 UK.
I believe that this arrangement would offer a peer-review process that is more efficient, transparent, informative and, above all, fair. This would incentivise research that is more rigorous and creative – to 바카라사이트 benefit of academia and society as a whole.
Martin Lang is course leader for MA fine art and senior lecturer at 바카라사이트 University of Lincoln.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
