Do national research assessment exercises still pass peer review?

Very good article...I would suggest that going forward all higher education research must be problem solving. This means that all faculties (engineering, law, science and technology,, social sciences, creative arts and humanities, business studues, sports, medicine) must investigate issues in their respective disciplines that are pertinent to the resolution/reduction of a problem in their community/society. For example, social science faculty should investigate any one of the following issues with a view to reducing same: poverty in a community, child poverty or any other aspect of poverty, unemployment, juvenile delinquency, any form of crime, workplace productivity, staff performance appraisal or any other. Science/engineering/technology staff can investigate transitioning efforts to green alternative energy or any other engineering, scientific or technological issue that is currently unresolved. Creative Arts and humanities students/staff can investigate the impact of direct arts involvement in the development of emotional intelligence and compare such results with the impact of a lack of direct involvement. All research funding, assessments (by THES world university rankings, Athena Swan and others) and incentives going forward should be hinged or tied to this requirement for problem solving. In addition all such research should also result in the development and implementation of a problem solving project proposal to be undertaken by academic staff and collaborators who conducted such research. Then we shall see visible benefits to communities, societies and government and other funding agencies will also see tangible results being derived from their research investments/ contributions. Undergraduate and graduate teaching can then be tied to real world issues and students would then see the subject matter of their various courses coming alive. This approach renders it easier to establish strong linkages between research, teaching and community outreach.

With so much money involved, we need to be able to evaluate the Return on Investment. (ROI). In the absence of Dominic Cummings, I wonder if there will still be a higher allocation of funds to the business sector rather than money going mainly to academics. What can we learn from the way Covid 19 has been handled? If the problem that needed solving was "How can we stop millions of people being killed off and the answer was vaccines, does a partnership approach involving Government, University Research and Business seem the right way forward?

The REF is the most useless thing that was ever designed and foisted upon the academic community. It has encouraged game playing on a massive scale that has benefitted many rent seekers both in managerial positions and in academia. Look at the countries around the world whose universities are dominating research both theoretical and applied, that should tell anyone with half a brain cell that you don't need the REF to be making an impact for the benefit of all humankind. In one discipline many new comers are lining up to attract academics from the US to somehow get their papers into particular journals. This is what it has been reduced to. Not to mention the fractional contract foreign academics who are being funded by the tax payers of this country!

If you really want to know about the research environment. As part of the REF, among other things conduct an anonymous survey of the academics and other services directly involved in research. That will tell you more than any massaged metric ever will.