UK's Successor to its Research Assessment Exercise Still Under Construction. (April 25, 2008)

The UK government's universities secretary, John Denham, announced yesterday that the replacement for the current Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) to assess universities' research quality in the sciences - the Research Excellence Framework (REF), based primarily on metrics - will be delayed a year so that all disciplines (sciences, humanities, arts and social sciences) are dealt with together.

The revision now planned for the REF there will no longer be such a marked differentiation between the assessment mechanism for science-based subjects vs the rest, but just what that entails isn't at all clear.

According to The Guardian's Anthea Lipsett: "Academics had voiced concerns about arts and humanities subjects being treated separately. The assessment of research quality for all subjects will be based on statistics, including bibliometrics where appropriate."

The REF, is scheduled to fully replace the RAE in 2014. Universities secretary Denham said: "I am very grateful to the Higher Education Funding Council for England for the work they have done so far to develop the new arrangements as part of what is a technically complex exercise. The response to Hefce's recent consultation indicated broad support for the proposals for implementation of the new research excellence framework. We have listened carefully to feedback from the higher education sector and others. The modifications I have announced today address two key concerns which came over very clearly in the consultation responses."

And in a carefully worded statement Prof Steve Smith, chairman of the 1994 group of research-intensive universities and vice-chancellor of Exeter University, considered the delay to be, "sensible... [and] we hope that the time gained by the delay will be used to ensure that the introduction of metrics informs - and does not replace - peer review."

Meanwhile, Australia's Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, is developing a new RQF, (sorry ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia)) on the run, without the data that will provide vital information, and without the time to think things through carefully. It's a bit of a worry.

Which is one way of looking at the matter. Another is that no one has bothered to demonstrate that all this bureaucracy, expense and effort is worthwhile.

Perhaps, someone will stand up and challenge the government to explain why the ARC and NHMRC peer review system for grant awards needs this additional layer placed over it.