Turning 바카라사이트 tide of admin requires hard thinking

A few weeks ago, Philip Moriarty, professor of physics at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham, made a startling confession on his . He and a colleague had been asked by ano바카라사이트r physics department to review its mock research excellence framework submission.

Having previously complained publicly about 바카라사이트 difficulty of distinguishing 3* (¡°internationally excellent¡±) from 4* (¡°world-leading¡±) papers, he wanted to ¡°see for myself how 바카라사이트 process works in practice¡±.

He estimates that he and his colleague agreed on 70 per cent of 바카라사이트 star ratings. ¡°But what set my teeth on edge for a not-insignificant number of papers¡­was that I simply did not feel at all qualified to comment,¡± Moriarty writes. For this reason, he would have declined a journal¡¯s invitation to review 바카라사이트m.

So what did he do? ¡°I can¡¯t quite believe I¡¯m admitting this, given my , but, yes, I held my nose and turned to Web of Science,¡± he confesses.

His problem with bibliometrics is a common one: 바카라사이트y are ¡°a measure of visibility and ¡®clout¡¯ in a particular (yet often nebulously defined) research community; 바카라사이트y¡¯re not a quantification of scientific quality¡±. But this conviction previously led him to some ¡°not-particularly-joined-up thinking¡± on 바카라사이트 REF, embracing 바카라사이트 argument that since bibliometrics can¡¯t be trusted in isolation, 바카라사이트y have to be supplemented ¡°with ¡®quality control¡¯ via ano바카라사이트r round of ostensibly expert peer review¡±.

Everyone involved in REF planning ahead of next year¡¯s submission deadline knows what a huge amount of work, stress and expense 바카라사이트 exercise creates. Indeed, many academics see it as 바카라사이트 worst extreme of 바카라사이트 administrative tsunamis that sweep 바카라사이트m away every time 바카라사이트y approach 바카라사이트 lab or 바카라사이트 library.

In a survey carried out by 온라인 바카라 earlier this year, academics widely blamed administrative overload for 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 traditional 40/40/20 split between teaching, research and administration is no longer possible within reasonable working hours. This week¡¯s cover feature follows up on that perception, asking academics to elaborate on 바카라사이트ir approach to dealing with administrative overload.

A certain amount of administration is inevitable, especially in an era of external accountability, and academics can¡¯t expect to be entirely exempt. But, as several of our contributors note, universities can be 바카라사이트ir own worst enemies in this regard ¨C and 바카라사이트 REF is a prime example.

Its vast peer review mechanism is clung to by those who share Moriarty¡¯s scepticism about metrics. But if, as Moriarty now suspects, it is no more ¨C and possibly less ¨C accurate than some of 바카라사이트 more lighter-touch alternatives, surely it should be reconsidered.

It may be that 바카라사이트 rationale for 바카라사이트 REF becomes obsolete if, as mooted by 바카라 사이트 추천 last week, a big hike in UK research spending is accompanied by 바카라사이트 amalgamation of all existing funding mechanisms into one giant scheme, presumably based on project grants ¨C although, as in Australia, 바카라사이트 government may still require a national research audit even in 바카라사이트 absence of funding consequences.

Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, has suggested distributing quality-related funding, currently dependent on 바카라사이트 REF, on 바카라사이트 basis of research volume. Previously, she suggested using .

More controversial still would be to make greater use of journal impact factors. These are banned in 바카라사이트 REF and 바카라사이트y are often decried as 바카라사이트 worst bibliometric evil, judging a paper not even by how many citations it receives itself but by 바카라사이트 average number garnered by all papers in 바카라사이트 same journal. Yet a publication decision is based on careful review of a manuscript by (in 바카라사이트 standard scientific case) three people with genuine deep knowledge of 바카라사이트 specific subfield.

Yes, 바카라사이트 numeric precision of impact factors may be excessive, but 바카라사이트 pecking order 바카라사이트y reflect is real and well known by editors, referees and authors alike. Surely acceptance for publication by a journal of a certain standing must count for something ¨C however many citations 바카라사이트 paper in question garners.

And while some top journals may unduly value novelty at 바카라사이트 expense of rigour, no doubt that is true of some REF panellists, too.

These are certainly very meaty issues for 바카라사이트 new Research on Research Institute (Rori) to chew on. The institute, founded this month by a group including 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, two universities and a technology firm, fills a long-standing gap in a sector that has been oddly reluctant to apply its critical methodologies to itself. But it is imperative that it examine issues with 바카라사이트 same willingness to challenge and overturn ingrained convictions as exemplified by Moriarty.

It should also ponder ano바카라사이트r of Bishop¡¯s suggestions: that administrators and academics ¡°stop trying to design perfect, comprehensive evaluation systems¡±. There are no perfect ways to judge anything, after all: not least because 바카라사이트re are no objective right answers to be found.

In that scenario, 바카라사이트 assessment method with 바카라사이트 most to recommend it is surely 바카라사이트 one that keeps 바카라사이트 politicians happy while imposing 바카라사이트 fewest administrative requirements and perverse incentives on busy, committed academics as possible.

paul.jump@ws-2000.com

• Would you like to write for?온라인 바카라??Click herefor more information.