New Zealand research assessment delayed again

Talk about flogging a dead horse. PBRF is fundamentally broken and past its use-by date, yet people like Whelan insist it's the "only mechanism we've got." How visionary! Look at the studies of the recent REF exercise (upon which the PBRF is based) and where that looks headed, and it's evident that something like PBRF requires a dramatic overhaul. If the version of PBRF currently in the works rolls out (with its minor tweaks) tomorrow, it's already outdated; in 2026, it'll be entirely obsolete.

So, "the only mechanism we've got ... to justify the kind of investment our government makes in university research" is a system where a small panel of academics make up the rules—the rules about how their work totally justifies taxpayer investment. Think about that for a moment ... Suppose the average taxpayer was privy to some of the work that my PBRF panel proclaimed outstandingly excellent (and some of the work they considered valueless)—I suspect they'd be just as puzzled and irate as the academics who must endure this PBRF farce.