Friday, 21 July 2017

Schrodinger's REF

Schrodinger's REF: Portable and Non-Portable
Yesterday David Sweeney unveiled his initial plans for REF2021. ‘We’ve responded fully to the recommendations of the Stern Review, together with the comments and feedback we received in the consultation that followed,' he said.

‘Although they were diametrically opposed to each other, I’m delighted to say we’ve managed to create a hybrid framework for the next exercise which manages to accommodate all views.  

‘As a starting point we used the excellent 4* work of Erwin Schrödinger. To meet the conflicting views of all stakeholders, we have devised a system whereby everyone will be submitted, but at the same time there’s the option whereby no one will be. The system will be completely inclusive but absolutely exclusive. It will be a 100% submission and a 0% submission. I believe these two states of being can fully coexist.

Thursday, 13 July 2017

Opening up the Black Box of Peer Review

Liz Allen
Last month I attended a session at KBS on the Future of Research Assessment. I wrote up some notes from this, and particularly the talk by Prof John Mingers, here. 

Also speaking at the event was Liz Allen, Director of Strategic Initiatives at F1000. She published some thoughts on it on the F1000 blog, and has kindly allowed me to republish them here. 
______________________

I recently participated in a workshop hosted by the University of Kent Business School – the subject was whether metrics or peer review are the best tools to support research assessment. Thankfully, we didn’t get embroiled in the sport of ‘metric bashing’, but instead agreed that one size does not fit all and that whatever research assessment we do, while taking account of context, needs to be proportionate.