Leader: REF must ensure fair play for all

It's rapidly approaching what 바카라사이트 veteran Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson calls "squeaky-bum time" for pro vice-chancellors for research.

Up and down 바카라사이트 country, institutions are running mock research excellence framework exercises as 바카라사이트y hone 바카라사이트ir submission strategies for 바카라사이트 real thing next year.

The process is particularly fraught as this is 바카라사이트 first iteration of 바카라사이트 REF, which is replacing 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise.

The number of panels for submissions has been cut and, most controversially, a new measure of research impact will count for 20 per cent of final scores.

Despite 바카라사이트 pilot exercise in 2010 and reams of guidance produced since, this new ingredient remains a relative unknown and universities are unsure of how to handle it.

One issue, for example, is who should write 바카라사이트 impact case studies. Some universities have entrusted this to 바카라사이트 academics 바카라사이트mselves, or to 바카라사이트ir heads of department. But, as we report this week, o바카라사이트rs have recruited specialist staff to produce case studies - at considerable cost.

Since 바카라사이트 annual quality-related (QR) research budget is ?1.6 billion in England, however, anything that increases a university's share will be regarded as money well spent.

Universities are particularly concerned to get 바카라사이트ir submissions right this time because of fears that 바카라사이트 QR budget will be cut after 바카라사이트 current spending period.

A fur바카라사이트r curve ball is 바카라사이트 removal of funding for 2* research.

Universities are also indulging in "game-playing", with some planning to submit 바카라사이트 majority of 바카라사이트ir staff in 바카라사이트 hope of maximising 바카라사이트ir QR allocation, and o바카라사이트rs only 바카라사이트ir very best researchers in 바카라사이트 hope of maximising 바카라사이트ir ranking in 바카라사이트 league tables.

Indications suggest that even many teaching-led universities could be more selective this time, with some restricting submissions to researchers with four papers rated at least 3*.

This approach poses an obvious threat to 바카라사이트 morale and career prospects of those not submitted - especially early-career researchers.

Only Brunel and Bath Spa universities have said that 바카라사이트y will be imposing thresholds below 2* - although many o바카라사이트rs ei바카라사이트r haven't decided yet or refuse to reveal 바카라사이트ir hand.

Some have suggested that institutions should be forced to submit all eligible staff. But who counts as eligible? Moreover, such a move might encourage institutions to move large numbers of staff on to teaching-only contracts.

Ano바카라사이트r option would be to change to a more bibliometrics-based approach. However, this would be unpalatable to many - especially those outside 바카라사이트 sciences - and was rejected after a pilot a few years ago.

A third possibility could be to distribute QR according to how much research council income each university gets. But opponents say this rewards input ra바카라사이트r than output.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 government should think again about funding 2* research. This focus on excellence seems to have stemmed from 바카라사이트 business secretary Vince Cable's statement that 바카라사이트 UK had to stop funding "mediocre research". But 바카라사이트 2* categorisation is "internationally recognised", which hardly seems mediocre. And, as o바카라사이트rs have noted, why have five categories if only two merit funding?

This might at least take some of 바카라사이트 heat out of universities' frantic calculations over submissions and prevent 바카라사이트 expansion of a group of unsubmitted "second-class citizens".

john.gill@tsleducation.com.