Talk:Research Excellence Framework
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Performance Rankings
These are not published by REF. They are interpretations using REF data and other things for commercial reasons. I do not think they belong on a page about REF. I therefore propose to delete it in 7 days unless someone (a) gives a good reason and (b) improves the section to explain the relationship to REF. Chemical Engineer (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
REF-ability and institutional claims
| WP:NOTAFORUM |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There are two scenarios to this, both of which occur, although they are diametric opposites. First, an academic with a "good" publication list may be headhunted by an institution in order to have REF-able papers in their portfolio. Now, it may happen that the academic thus hired merely was a very junior person on these papers with little by way of original input. This explains how second-tier institutions end up with a roster of unproductive professors. Second, and quite conversely, there is a deplorable practice of senior figures putting their names on papers to which they did not contribute. (The big name person has to be on the paper because they are big, and they are big because they are on every paper.) This means that the institution only has to pamper the big names in order that the work remains attributable to the institution. REF is not to blame for either scenario, but is does exacerbate injustice in academia.137.205.101.81 (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |