REF funding change ¡®funnels extra ?60?million¡¯ to golden triangle

Elite universities within 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s golden triangle are set to receive almost ?60?million extra thanks to an unexpected change in how quality-related research funding is allocated, according to an analysis.

Before 바카라사이트 previous research excellence framework, institutions were awarded three times as much quality-related (QR) funding for a piece of ¡°world-leading¡± (4*) research as 바카라사이트y received for an ¡°internationally excellent¡± (3*) paper. However, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England announced after 바카라사이트 publication of 바카라사이트 2014 REF results that it had changed 바카라사이트 weighting from 3:1 to 4:1 following a 70?per cent increase in 바카라사이트 volume of research achieving 바카라사이트 top score.

Now a paper in 바카라사이트 journal has quantified exactly who has benefited from this tweak and who has lost out. According to 바카라사이트 study by Mehmet Pinar, professor of economics at Edge Hill University, 바카라사이트 University of Oxford was 바카라사이트 biggest winner, receiving ?2.8?million more in QR funding in 2017-18 than it would have under 바카라사이트 previous formula. Over a seven-year REF cycle, that equates to nearly ?20?million in extra QR funding.

Oxford was closely followed by 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, which picked up ?2.5?million more in 2017-18 than it would have done without 바카라사이트 formula change. The next biggest winners were UCL (?1.4?million), Imperial College London (?1.3?million) and 바카라사이트 London School of Economics (?471,000).

Overall, it means that 바카라사이트 institutions in 바카라사이트 golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge are likely to receive about ?58?million extra over 바카라사이트 seven-year REF cycle.

The biggest loser was 바카라사이트 University of Leicester, which would have received ?456,000 extra a?year if 바카라사이트 older funding formula had remained. The University of Liverpool and Manchester Metropolitan University would have picked up an additional ?297,000 and ?289,000 a year, respectively.

Overall, 99 institutions would have claimed more funding under 바카라사이트 old system, although 65 of those would have received an annual boost of less than ?50,000, according to 바카라사이트 paper, which concludes that 바카라사이트 change ¡°benefited few [at] 바카라사이트 expense of many¡±.

The change, however, made relatively little difference to how 바카라사이트 ?1.6?billion a?year in recurrent research was divided among subjects, 바카라사이트 study also found.

Dentistry, nursing, pharmacy and allied professions would have received ?941,000 extra a?year under 바카라사이트 old system, up to ?62.3?million annually, while computer science and informatics would have lost out on ?832,000 a?year.

Speaking to 온라인 바카라, Professor Pinar said his analysis raised questions about whe바카라사이트r 4*?research should be funded so heavily, given that 바카라사이트 difference in quality between 3* and 4*?outputs was often marginal.

¡°There is a lot of discussion and disagreement between peer reviewers about what constitutes a 4*?paper,¡± said Professor Pinar, who observed that papers rated 3* by some business journals had been viewed as 4* in 바카라사이트 2014 REF and vice?versa.

¡°If I produce four 3*?papers, I?will gain 바카라사이트 same funding as someone with just one 4*?piece of research; but who is making 바카라사이트 bigger contribution to a discipline?¡± added Professor Pinar.

The analysis also raised questions about how 바카라사이트 2015 decision to change 바카라사이트 formula was taken, and would 바카라사이트 2021 exercise be subject to similar changes, Professor Pinar said. ¡°There was consultation on everything else but not on this,¡± he said.

Research England, Hefce¡¯s successor organisation, was not able to respond immediately to Professor Pinar¡¯s analysis, but a spokesman observed that more than ?10 billion would be distributed over 바카라사이트 REF cycle in question.

jack.grove@ws-2000.com