REF 2021: Did game-playing shift from researchers to outputs?

I don’t think the double-weighting of some outputs, namely monographs, should be grouped along with the other forms of game-playing or being ‘strategic’ that are mentioned. Given some books are often ten times the length of an standard and are the gold standard in some disciplines, like history, there is a case they should have an even greater weighting.

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand. Clearly those that design the rules of the game are being outwitted by the players. If you want to know how these games are played you need to look more closely at the individual players. But who has the incentive to do that?

Multi-author publications with hundreds of authors should be ruled out of REF submissions and more than eight authors subjected to greater scrutiny. The practice of having names added to a paper even though the contribution is scant or non-existent, needs to be abolished. It is unethical and undermines the efforts of those who have contributed to the work.

Ensure that those returned have a "significant" connection to the institution. Significant should mean significant and special attention and more details must be required for those based outside the UK.