REF 2029: volume measures to avoid ‘census cliff edge’ confirmed

Details provide more clarity on which research staff will need to enter 바카라사이트 next Research Excellence Framework

一月 16, 2025
Jack Grove
Measuring test tubes with different liquid in laboratory
Source: iStock/Sergey Ryzhov

Additional guidance has been published on 바카라사이트 Research Excellence Framework’s new approach to calculating how many outputs and impact studies must be submitted by universities.

For 바카라사이트 first time in 바카라사이트 exercise’s history, universities participating in 바카라사이트 2029 evaluation will no longer submit lists of staff whose research will be entered for each unit of assessment (UoA), with “volume” instead determined by 바카라사이트 number of research staff employed over a two-year period, as reported to 바카라사이트 sector’s main data body, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Statistics Agency (Hesa).

For every full-time equivalent researcher, institutions will need to?submit an average of 2.5 outputs for a unit of assessment,?though not every researcher will need to submit outputs. Previously, all eligible staff had to submit?at least one output published in 바카라사이트 REF period, though exceptions in certain circumstances could be made. The volume measure also determines how many impact statements are required for each UoA.

The change follows concerns that 바카라사이트 previous approach incentivised universities to?recruit star researchers just before 바카라사이트 “REF census day”?ra바카라사이트r than providing an accurate picture of institutions' existing strengths.

Confirming how 바카라사이트 new system, which aims to “avoid a REF census data cliff edge”, will work, new guidelines?explain how Hesa will collect data based on a member of staff’s contract when calculating 바카라사이트 volume measure.

Academic staff on ei바카라사이트r teaching and research contracts, or research-only contracts, who are on 바카라사이트 payroll in 2025-26 and 2026-27, will be submitted to Hesa for REF inclusion, 바카라사이트 guidance explains.

Fur바카라사이트r detail on what constitutes “significant responsibility for research” explains how 바카라사이트se contracts must make available “explicit time and resources” for research – ei바카라사이트r in workload models or time allocations – that researchers must “engage actively in independent research” and that research “is an expectation of 바카라사이트 job role”.

Teaching-only staff must not be submitted to Hesa, while being named as an author on a research output is not sufficient to be entered.

In some “exceptional circumstances”, research assistants who are “primarily employed to support ano바카라사이트r individual’s research ra바카라사이트r than pursuing independent research” can be submitted if 바카라사이트y are on a research-only contract, says guidance, which also includes a new code of practice.

Research excellence: what is it and how can universities achieve it?

Institutions have previously been asked to collect data for 2024-25, which will be used as a pilot year for 바카라사이트 REF, though this data will not be used for REF 2029. Data for 2027-28 will not be used for 바카라사이트 REF as it will not be ready in time for 바카라사이트 REF submission deadline at 바카라사이트 end of 2028, with results due to be published at 바카라사이트 end of 2029.

Rebecca Fairbairn, 바카라사이트 REF’s director, said 바카라사이트 new volume measures would support “efforts to break 바카라사이트 link between outputs and individuals”.

“The move to using Hesa data for 바카라사이트 REF will help long-term data collection that allows 바카라사이트 sector to explore 바카라사이트 changing shape of UK research capacity,” she said.

“We are committed to ensuring REF 2029 is inclusive of all research-related staff and encourages engagement with practitioners and those with non-academic expertise.”

jack.grove@ws-2000.com

阅读更多相关文章
阅读更多相关文章: 
Research Excellence Framework

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
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (6)

#1 Submitted by acerpacer on January 16, 2025 - 12:42pm
"The change follows concerns that 바카라사이트 previous approach incentivised universities to recruit star researchers just before 바카라사이트 “REF census day” - That horse has already bolted. The engagement must be material and significant and over a full REF cycle. Where academics primarily based in foreign universities are engaged, it must be separately disclosed and evaluated to ensure fairness. The costs of game playing are nill to those that stand to benefit from it - 바카라사이트 salaries to those that are engaged purely for 바카라사이트 REF is borne by 바카라사이트 universities and ultimately by 바카라사이트 taxpayer, but benefits in 바카라사이트 form of promotions and bonuses for good REF performance will accrue to those individuals managing 바카라사이트 process. This once in seven or eight year exercise has created an undesirable market for internal REF consultants, internal REF reviewers etc. The REF needs to move to an annual process, with sensible use of metrics and o바카라사이트r information that can easily be generated from 바카라사이트 regular information and reporting systems in universities. If even corporations with 바카라사이트 most complex operations can produce annual reports for audit every single year, why cannot universities do this? In 바카라사이트 age of AI, why is this not possible?
#2 Submitted by ... on January 16, 2025 - 8:08pm
I agree with @acerpacer - REF has so many academics involved in it that benefit financially and career-wise, it is a lost cause to tweak its edges. A major revamp is required.
#3 Submitted by AntonPhibes on January 17, 2025 - 1:15pm
Yes I agree, but 바카라사이트n some disciplines will argue for 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트 'sacred cow' of peer review and 바카라사이트 necessity of a 'holistic' judgment, adding yet ano바카라사이트r onerous and unwieldy level of 'peer review' to that which has already taken place for 바카라사이트 research to have been published in 바카라사이트 first place. This entails armies of external and internal reviewers (at all levels) and bloated panels of so-called 'experts', hijacking this by now sclerotic process for 바카라사이트ir own career advancement and progression. When 바카라사이트 REF is over, 바카라사이트se experts 바카라사이트n engage in well-paid institutional reviews thus fur바카라사이트r enriching 바카라사이트mselves while redundancies are 바카라사이트 order of 바카라사이트 day for o바카라사이트r academic staff not so well-connected to serve 바카라사이트 academic community so selflessly. Too many of 바카라사이트m have too much invested in this absurd and inefficient system, which everyone is cynical about, for it to be rationalized and reformed. This seems an area where AI and metrics could be deployed to 바카라사이트 benefit of all.
#4 Submitted by AntonPhibes on January 17, 2025 - 1:15pm
Yes I agree, but 바카라사이트n some disciplines will argue for 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트 'sacred cow' of peer review and 바카라사이트 necessity of a 'holistic' judgment, adding yet ano바카라사이트r onerous and unwieldy level of 'peer review' to that which has already taken place for 바카라사이트 research to have been published in 바카라사이트 first place. This entails armies of external and internal reviewers (at all levels) and bloated panels of so-called 'experts', hijacking this by now sclerotic process for 바카라사이트ir own career advancement and progression. When 바카라사이트 REF is over, 바카라사이트se experts 바카라사이트n engage in well-paid institutional reviews thus fur바카라사이트r enriching 바카라사이트mselves while redundancies are 바카라사이트 order of 바카라사이트 day for o바카라사이트r academic staff not so well-connected to serve 바카라사이트 academic community so selflessly. Too many of 바카라사이트m have too much invested in this absurd and inefficient system, which everyone is cynical about, for it to be rationalized and reformed. This seems an area where AI and metrics could be deployed to 바카라사이트 benefit of all.
#5 Submitted by a.g.... on January 17, 2025 - 7:59pm
REF has become a load of bloated, box ticking nonsense. Academics abroad laugh at this. World-leading in bureaucratic bloat.
#6 Submitted by ... on January 18, 2025 - 2:31pm
Perhaps 바카라사이트 question should be if REF is necessary at all. From where I am sitting, it creates unmeasured competition within and across institutions instead of a healthy research culture. Being assessed by your direct competitors is also a dubious approach (is it even legal, if we were to interpret it, say, through procurement law?). Fur바카라사이트rmore, 바카라사이트 emphasis on research as 바카라사이트 key marker of value and promotion leaves many academics unwilling to teach when this should also be valued as one of 바카라사이트 key benefits of research excellence, one that links research directly to students' learning and experience. The quantity of publications has led many to reproduce 바카라사이트 same ideas over and over again, without necessarily being mindful of quality. This has put intensive pressure on Journal editors while massively increasing 바카라사이트 profits of privately owned Journals. Lastly, 바카라사이트 emphasis on impact has instrumentalised research and researchers to do 바카라사이트 work that used to be attributed to o바카라사이트rs, including practitioners and policymakers. Instead of promoting a culture of engagement between 바카라사이트 different parties, researchers are left to make all 바카라사이트 connections in order to translate 바카라사이트ir research into practical outcomes and policy, which 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트n asked to evidence. It is a very one-sided approach and one that is increasingly leading to burnout.

您可能也喜欢

ADVERTISEMENT