http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/books/story/0,10595,869621,00.html
The "Education" section of The Guardian 7th Jan 2003 includes Public Library
of Science [page 9] and RAE Review [pp.12-13]
see also
http://www.rareview.ac.uk
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,9828,869578,00.html
Adrian Smith
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK]
Sent: 12 December 2002 20:43
To: JISC-DEVELOPMENT_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review
Below are excerpts from some articles that appeared in the Times Higher
Education Supplement on December 6 2002 about potential changes in the
UK Research Assessment Exercise. The articles are not online, and I have
only excerpted the passages pertinent to my own proposal for making
the RAE simpler and cheaper, and at the same time more explicit and
accurate. [The article doesn't mention an essential component of my
proposal -- the online standardized RAE Curriculum Vitae for every
researcher
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#research-funders-do which
would include other measurable indicators of research impact, such as
numbers of research students and grants (which are themselves correlated
with citation impact): The scientometric research assessment tools are
described at:
http://opcit.eprints.org/ ]
Excerpts from:
RAE review by Mandy Garbner
Times Higher Education Supplement 06 December 2002
The research assessment exercise review panel wants to see radical
change... Besides funding, the RAE has been criticised for the way
assessment is carried out... Sir Gareth Roberts, who is chairing
the Joint Funding Bodies' review of the RAE, says... that few people
contributing to the consultation on its future have come up with
radical ways of changing it... [T]he review wants something more
radical than tinkering [such as changing the way panel members are
appointed]. It focuses on creating a "less burdensome assessment
method", rather than on funding.
One of the more radical proponents of change is Southampton
University's Stevan Harnad. He would like to see UK research made
"accessible and assessable continuously online" rather than in
a four-yearly process, as happens now. He argues that research in
every discipline can continue to be refereed, but can be made freely
accessible to all academics if they archive their own refereed
research online, bypassing the access tolls charged by research
publications. He says software can also determine research impact,
that is, how much other researchers cite research and build on it...
Harnad adds that the software to do this is available. All it
needs is for the RAE to encourage the process "by mandating that
all UK universities self archive all their annual refereed research
in their own e-print archives". The benefits, he says, include "a
far more effective and sensitive measure of research productivity
and impact at far less cost" to both universities and the RAE and a
strengthening of the uptake and impact of UK research by increasing
its accessibility. "The UK is uniquely placed to move ahead with
this and lead the world," Harnad says, "because the RAE is already
in place."
The public consultation on the future of the RAE closed last week. The
review panel is assessing the contributions and will report shortly.
David Clark: "The time involved in the process is
mind-boggling. Universities set up committees between each RAE to test
scenarios, model possible outcomes and consider reorganisations to
maximise potential income from the next exercise. The preparation of
submissions dominates universities in the run-up to the RAE. Yet the
outcome is so strongly correlated with research income from external
funders that the grading could be achieved at the press of a button."
-------------------
Prior articles on this topic (2001)
Harnad, S. (2001) "Research access, impact and assessment." Times Higher
Education Supplement 1487: p. 16.
http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/83/
Lawrence, S. (2001b) Free online availability substantially increases a
paper's impact. Nature Web Debates.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html
Received on Tue Jan 07 2003 - 13:00:53 GMT