Overhaul of metrics usage could cut frequency of REF

Chair of review into use of metrics suggests REF interval could be cut to once a decade

Published on
April 3, 2014
Last updated
June 10, 2015

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (3)

So basically, the government did not like the conclusion of the previous review that metrics were not robust enough and wants it revisited- presumably until someone comes up with the "correct" conclusion.
The use of metrics was, very sensibly, ruled out by the current REF. Metrics corrupt science. They encourage gaming, hype and outright dishonesty. Altmetrics are the worst of the lot. To get a high score all you have to do is include the word penis in your tweet. "Altmetrics are numbers generated by people who don’t understand research, for people who don’t understand research" See "Why you should ignore altmetrics and other bibliometric nightmares" http://www.dcscience.net/?p=6369 Science is hard enough without having to contend with corruption by administrators who don't understand it.
"“The ideal is that you find a healthy and sensible balance of metrics- and non-metrics-based systems that can be used in a much more realtime way " Oh really, that's utter nonsense. Metrics provide perverse incentives. They encourage dishonesty and reward short termism. That's been obvious for some time now to anyone who actually does science (as opposed to hanging round its fringes talking policy). Metrics are way for people who don't understand science to give a phony sense of precision to politicians who don't understand science. Productivity management is a way of ensuring that future Nobel prizewinners get fired before they get started. Science is hard enough without having to contend with such nonsense.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT