Hello



I've been trying to think through some of the 'big questions' posed by the Consultation on REF 2021, notably what might be the outcome of implementing Lord Stern's proposal to decouple outputs from individuals (Recommendation 2 of Stern, 2016).



If Recommendation 2 is implemented, all institutions will seek to maximize their REF score by submitting only the very best (potentially 4*) outputs as judged through peer review. This would be greatly facilitated by the possibility to submit staff with no outputs, or perhaps only one output.



Faced with a submission consisting entirely, or almost entirely, of 4* outputs, how will REF panels respond? As I see it, panels will have a choice: they can either rate the whole set of outputs as 4* (applying the logic of REF 2014), or reach for bibliometric indicators in an attempt to separate 'top 4*' outputs from 'bottom 4*' outputs, with possibly a third category of 'middle 4*'.



A consequence of choosing to rate a whole set of outputs as 4*, is that in REF 2021, there could be many submissions in each UoA that consist almost entirely of 4* outputs. With Impact and Environment contributing only 35%, in total, to the weighting of QR, this would prove a real headache for Research England, HEFCE's successor, and the devolved funding councils. If the field becomes bunched-up in this way, QR will be spread much more evenly than was the case following REF 2014. One might argue that this reduction in concentration would be a good thing, but unless Research England steps in to moderate the effect on the 'Golden Triangle' and other research-intensive institutions, they would likely see a substantial drop in their QR funding. This would create significant turbulence across the sector, particularly when considered alongside the as yet largely unknown consequences of the TEF and Brexit.



Alternatively, if the REF panels decide to use bibliometrics to assign a 3* rating to 'middle 4*' and 'bottom 4*' outputs (papers that, in REF 2014, would each have received a 4* rating), the effect will be to deflate, relative to REF 2014, the grades awarded to outputs in REF 2021. If that were to happen, come 2021 we could be faced with a situation where a significant number of UK universities have the appearance of being weaker, in research terms, than they were at the time of REF 2014. That doesn't send a good message to Government when we are lobbying for more funding.



I am sure that HEFCE and its equivalent bodies in the devolved administrations have thought about this carefully, and are acutely aware of the unintended consequences that might result if the decoupling of outputs and individuals were to be implemented. However, if as a sector we fail to strongly object to Recommendation 2 in our Consultation responses (the temptation being to focus on less complex issues), the funding councils will have no grounds for rejecting the proposal.



Let's make our voices heard, and say no to Recommendation 2!



When doing so, we should propose an alternative way forward. This could be to retain the approach to outputs taken in REF 2014, or there may be a better way - ideally one that doesn't involve having to submit Individual Staff Circumstances. Any thoughts?



Best regards,

Ray



--

Dr Ray Kent

Director of Research Administration

Research Office

The Royal Veterinary College

Royal College Street

London

NW1 0TU

T: +44 (0)20 7468 1206

E: [log in to unmask]









[RVC Logo - link to RVC Website]<http://www.rvc.ac.uk>    [Twitter icon - link to RVC (Official) Twitter] <http://twitter.com/RoyalVetCollege>     [Facebook icon - link to RVC (Official) Facebook] <http://www.facebook.com/theRVC>     [YouTube icon - link to RVC YouTube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/RoyalVetsLondon?feature=mhee>     [Pinterest icon - link to RVC Pinterest] <http://pinterest.com/royalvetcollege/>     [Instagram icon - link to RVC Instagram] <http://instagram.com/royalvetcollege>



This message, together with any attachments, is intended for the stated addressee(s) only and may contain privileged or confidential information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Royal Veterinary College (RVC). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying is strictly prohibited. Unless stated expressly in this email, this email does not create, form part of, or vary any contractual or unilateral obligation. Email communication cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, incomplete or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept liability for any such matters or their consequences. Communication with us by email will be taken as acceptance of the risks inherent in doing so.