REF reforms to seek ‘accountability without complex bureaucracy’

The amount of effort and time being diverted from research and teaching to service the REF is ridiculous. If someone wants to make such an assessment of 'research quality' (a dubious concept at the best of times) they should do it themselves. Do you ask the pig to go weigh himself and report back, then dispute the number he gives you?

Any policies or changes to REF are pointless because every university and department engages in mock REF reviews to determine which research staff is REF-able. REF panellists and ex-panellists are often used for such mock REF reviews. And these panellists have no accountability whatsoever so they can *discriminate* and *subvert* any REF polices by explicitly down rating research from non traditional sources and research from women or minorities with impunity. REF cannot do anything to them because mock REF reviews are done outside the jurisdiction of REF and is done by individual universities and depts. Mock REF reviewers are PAID for their work. This then filters all these research that do not get submitted by the department for REF in the first place - depts and universities will then take these mock REF reviewers' ratings and decide which academic staff is returned for REF by gaming the system (e.g., contract modification to teaching). What I am saying is that mock REF reviews can subvert ANY diversity and equality policies for REF because this discrimination began even before REF submission by some of these REF reviewers in mock REF reviews. Some of these REF reviewers are even blatant about their discrimination because it is a mock review and they are not accountable in this mock exercise to REF.

Totally agree. Mock REF reviews are done by panels whose membership is unknown, it is unknown what checks are carried to vet them to ensure they are unbiased. The excuse that is given for the opacity is that journals do the same. But this is nonsense. 1. Journals don’t employ you. They don’t have the responsibility as an employer to protect you from discrimination. 2. Journals often publish list of people who referee for them and the details of the editorial board members are public knowledge. 3. There is no reason to believe that the panel’s evaluations will match those of the REF panel. In these panels may be instructed to conservatively rank papers so that departments don’t get the flack when the results actually come out (lowering expectations strategy). So where these are used for internal evaluations too, academics get wrong end of the stick. Ex REF panel members should be barred from undertaking such consulting gigs.Is there a free and fair process to be on the REF panel? Why isn’t anyone asking why tax payers are funding this?