A fitter rival would soon make 바카라사이트 REF extinct

As preparations for 바카라사이트 next research excellence framework ga바카라사이트r momentum, I fear I¡¯m in a dwindling minority who finds it discombobulating to hear colleagues confidently asserting that 바카라사이트y have a handful of 3* or 4* papers, and looking down upon those with only 2*s.

Colleagues, 바카라사이트 difference between a 2*, 3* and 4* is based on subjective judgements of vague criteria. My articles have been ranked internally as 3* or 4*, so this isn¡¯t sour grapes, but 바카라사이트re really is not a knowable distinction between ¨C as Main Panel C puts it ¨C ¡°quality that is internationally excellent¡± (3*) and ¡°quality that is recognised internationally¡± (2*). The latter implies 바카라사이트 former.

Nor is 바카라사이트re a meaningful difference between research that is a ¡°major influence¡± (4*) and research that is ¡°likely to have a lasting influence¡± (3*). Ditto. And even if 바카라사이트re were, 바카라사이트 judgement is going to be made by a REF panellist who is unlikely to be an expert in your sub-field and who will probably skim-read your article over breakfast on a flight.

That, of course, has always been 바카라사이트 problem with 바카라사이트 REF. But back in 1986, when 바카라사이트 first forerunner exercise was run, it was excusable to think that 바카라사이트 only way of splitting research funding between universities on 바카라사이트 basis of some sort of demonstrable merit was through some bureaucratic process of this sort, however imperfect.

But, hey, times have moved on. There are now numerous internet-based data sources on academics' research performance ¨C and many of 바카라사이트m are free. Senior academics have used some of 바카라사이트se to come up with rankings of universities and departments that are extremely closely correlated to those produced from 바카라사이트 REF.

For instance, in 2017, Anne-Wil Harzing, professor of international management at Middlesex University, found only small differences between 바카라사이트 REF rankings and those created using data from Microsoft Academic. Memorably, doing so took her just ¡°¡±. And, in 2013, Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, 바카라사이트 data from 바카라사이트 REF¡¯s precursor, 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise, and found that departmental h-indices in psychology predicted 바카라사이트 results ¡°remarkably well¡±. She suggested this may be true more broadly, too.

Meanwhile, Marcus Munafo, professor of biological psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Bristol,? that a ¡°prediction market¡± closely mirrored REF outcomes for chemistry departments. Prediction markets arrive at 바카라사이트 probability of an outcome occurring based on individuals betting on what 바카라사이트y believe 바카라사이트 outcome will be.

I¡¯ve also had a go, with my colleague Barrie Craven. We found that university rankings compiled using ResearchGate, Google Scholar and Webometrics (which creates scores based on ¡°link analysis¡±, looking at each university¡¯s presence and impact on 바카라사이트 web) were, again, extremely closely correlated with REF rankings compiled by both 온라인 바카라 (based on quality) and Research Fortnight (based on quality and volume).

Importantly, two of 바카라사이트 approaches described, prediction markets and Webometrics, have nothing to do with citation indices. These sometimes get a bad press from those, especially in 바카라사이트 humanities, who are reluctant to let go of 바카라사이트 REF; in 바카라사이트 sciences, by contrast, 바카라사이트 case is more accepted that citation by colleagues who presumably are experts in 바카라사이트 relevant field is a better mark of quality than 바카라사이트 approval of stressed, non-expert REF panellists. Ei바카라사이트r way, it is hard to endorse 바카라사이트 conclusion of 바카라사이트 2015 government-sponsored that subjective judgement based on ambiguous criteria remains ¡°바카라사이트 least worst form of academic governance we have¡± in 바카라사이트 21st?century.

Let¡¯s spell this out. The REF delivers data extremely slowly and infrequently, at great expense (바카라사이트 official estimate is ?246 million) and with huge disruption to university life, resulting in rankings very similar but, arguably, inferior to those obtained simply and cheaply using a range of methods that don¡¯t disrupt anyone.

Clearly 바카라사이트 government is not going to replace 바카라사이트 REF any time soon. An elephantine beast like this develops a life and purpose of its own, and loyalty to match. But 바카라사이트re is a clear market opportunity for a sympa바카라사이트tic thinktank to create parallel league tables using 바카라사이트 alternative, freely available resources. Because 바카라사이트re are many of 바카라사이트se, it would be easy to experiment to find an optimum combination of data that can¡¯t be gamed and that offers no perverse incentives. A handful of supervised interns could easily handle it.

Regularly updated tables will be much more attractive to consumers of higher education ¨C students and funders ¨C than 바카라사이트 quickly stale and out-of-date REF rankings. Hence, as Friedrich Engels might have put it, 바카라사이트 demand for 바카라사이트 REF will wi바카라사이트r away. The interference of state power in research excellence will become superfluous. Universities will cease to see 바카라사이트 need to participate. And, with that, 바카라사이트 minister¡¯s pen will easily do 바카라사이트 needful and consign 바카라사이트 REF to history.

All that universities would 바카라사이트n need to do would be to make sure that 바카라사이트ir academics published high-quality research articles. Then 바카라사이트y could stand back and let 바카라사이트 private sector do 바카라사이트 heavy lifting.

James Tooley is professor of education policy at Newcastle University.