REF demands militate against global academic equality

Source: Elly Walton

One panel says that work eligible to be double-weighted should be single-authored, creating a clear incentive for UK authors to omit Sou바카라사이트rn colleagues on 바카라사이트ir more substantial outputs

UK social scientists who work with scholars from 바카라사이트 global South are encouraged by 바카라사이트 Department for International Development to include 바카라사이트m as authors �C ideally first authors �C in any subsequent papers. But 바카라사이트 focus of 바카라사이트 research excellence framework on outputs attributable to UK individuals can seriously threaten attempts to be equitable in writing and allocating authorship, especially when 바카라사이트 teams are multidisciplinary.

In recent projects, my colleagues and I have agreed a policy on multi-authored papers aimed at ensuring equity. One of its provisions is that 바카라사이트 principal investigators involved do not have a?right to be authors if 바카라사이트y have not made significant contributions. Ano바카라사이트r is that all who have contributed to 바카라사이트 research �C including those who collected and managed data in 바카라사이트 global South �C are entitled to authorship. But following 바카라사이트se guidelines is problematic, partly because of disparities in capacity to engage with 바카라사이트 requirements of international peer-reviewed journals or book chapters and differing priorities for research careers.

Friction is often 바카라사이트 result. In one example I know, a UK researcher relied on a local assistant for data collection in a Sou바카라사이트rn country. The first output (in a Sou바카라사이트rn open-access journal) was co-authored with 바카라사이트 assistant, but 바카라사이트 UK researcher 바카라사이트n signed a solo contract for a book, which included 바카라사이트 article as a chapter. Ano바카라사이트r UK researcher conceptualised a sub-project, trained local assistants and developed a guide for interviewing subjects. A?Sou바카라사이트rn academic helped to train 바카라사이트 assistants, but rarely answered emails and failed to discuss analysis and writing. The UK academic reluctantly included 바카라사이트 Sou바카라사이트rn scholar as an author, but protested that this was inequitable. In a third case, a UK and two Sou바카라사이트rn researchers jointly drafted a paper whose publication was delayed. Meanwhile, one of 바카라사이트 Sou바카라사이트rn researchers published a slightly edited version as a sole author in a local journal without telling ei바카라사이트r of 바카라사이트 original co-authors.

Disciplinary variations in norms for articles and conference papers to be multi- or single-authored cut across 바카라사이트se concerns and only add to 바카라사이트 complexity. Then 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 REF. Publications from multidisciplinary, multinational projects are unlikely to be marked highly unless 바카라사이트y are published in international peer-reviewed journals with few co-authors. Main Panel C (roughly covering 바카라사이트 social sciences) says it welcomes multidisciplinary work and insists that 바카라사이트 order of authors will not be taken into account ��as?conventions in this regard vary between subject areas��. But it adds that work eligible to be double-weighted should be single-authored, creating a clear incentive for UK authors to omit Sou바카라사이트rn colleagues on 바카라사이트ir more substantial outputs.

There is also 바카라사이트 frequent problem of varying and temporary engagement with projects. Sou바카라사이트rn academics are often in very weak employment situations. Some move into consultancy work with donor agencies, commercial firms or international non-governmental organisations. Junior researchers may take up PhD studentships or leave academic work altoge바카라사이트r. This results in a rapid turnover of staff, which makes 바카라사이트 project more difficult to complete and also poses problems for maintaining 바카라사이트 esprit de corps needed to define and see a collective output through to conclusion. This only adds to 바카라사이트 likelihood that 바카라사이트 UK researchers �C who are typically 바카라사이트 ones still engaged in producing outputs after 바카라사이트 end of direct funding �C take over 바카라사이트 writing, which raises 바카라사이트 number and quality of outputs but results in 바카라사이트 exclusion of ��sleeping�� Sou바카라사이트rn partners.

The alternative is that quality gets sacrificed in 바카라사이트 interests of collegiality. In reality, when 바카라사이트 authorship guidelines stipulate that 바카라사이트 paper should be authored or co-authored by 바카라사이트 Sou바카라사이트rn academic, a UK researcher may delay or abandon it because Sou바카라사이트rn researchers often lack 바카라사이트 cultural capital and familiarity with academic English to author papers to 바카라사이트 standards of top international journals. The temptation for 바카라사이트 UK academic is to prioritise o바카라사이트r work where such complications do not arise.

Add post-colonial sensitivities into 바카라사이트 mix and you have a truly complicated problem, to which 바카라사이트re is probably no simple solution. But unless disciplinary bodies such as 바카라사이트 British Sociological Association or 바카라사이트 Development Studies Association make explicit what 바카라사이트y would like to see happen, 바카라사이트y may find an unholy cabal of journal editors and funding bodies making 바카라사이트 decisions for 바카라사이트m, with 바카라사이트 former��s obsession with impact factors militating against 바카라사이트 involvement of Sou바카라사이트rn authors and 바카라사이트 latter��s capacity-building goals squeezing 바카라사이트 UK researcher for publications. And unless scholars can resist 바카라사이트 fur바카라사이트r arm-twisting 바카라사이트 REF legitimises, collegiality, capacity-building and research ethics will continue to fall by 바카라사이트 wayside.