Cookie policy: This site uses cookies to simplify and improve your usage and experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information on how we use and manage cookies please take a look at our privacy and cookie policies. Your privacy is important to us and our policy is to neither share nor sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

Willetts: ‘REF will take no notice of where researchers publish’

Researchers should not feel obliged to pursue research favoured by prestigious journals, David Willetts has said.

The universities and science minister used his Gareth Roberts Science Policy Lecture this week to address a series of common anxieties voiced by researchers.

He cited “persuasive” complaints that research in some fields was distorted by the agendas of the top journals in which academics aspired to publish.

But he said that the research excellence framework, which will be used to allocate quality-related research funding from 2014, would judge outputs on the basis of “quality, quality, quality, not location, location, location”.

“Individual universities may have a different perspective on the journals you should have published in when it comes to promotion and recruitment, but the REF process makes no such judgements,” he said.

He suggested the “misunderstood” impact agenda was one way to encourage departments to “look beyond publication in a peer-reviewed journal as the be all and end all of academic life”.

And he defended the agenda against claims it would disadvantage frontier or arts and humanities research.

Nor would it require academics to become “crystal ball gazers” or inventers of “far-fetched accounts” that would distort their research and undermine their academic integrity.

“I do not want to see our researchers reduced to a grey utilitarian conformity. Intellectual curiosity and blue skies thinking are not going to be beaten out of you,” he said.

Meanwhile, the expanded REF panels and more collaboration between research councils would ensure multidisciplinary research did not go “unrewarded or unfunded”.

Mr Willetts denied that the government supported further research concentration “as an aim in itself”.

“The emphasis is on excellence wherever it exists. Funding awarded through the REF can and will support pockets of excellence, including lone scholars,” he said.

Nor did the research councils’ doctoral centres amount to “concentration on the sly”. “Critical mass” permitted multidisciplinary training and the leveraging of private investment and multidisciplinary education, but it was important to note that the research councils only funded around a quarter of UK doctoral students.

Mr Willetts announced that he would be co-hosting a meeting with Royal Society president Sir Paul Nurse to discuss the research career structure.

“Given the system cannot provide the number of senior academic positions desired by the pool of young researchers we have, should a long-term research career remain the automatic assumption for graduates entering PhD courses or postdoctoral positions? If not, how should we prepare them for life beyond academia?” he asked.

He also reassured researchers that the ban by the European Court of Justice earlier this week on patents for research involving embryonic stem cell research would not signal a decline in funding for such research.

Readers' comments (2)

  • I can only speak for economics, where there is a persistent problem of low or zero citation of papers even in the 'best' journals which - whatever REF panels may say publicly - will doubtless be rated world class in the next exercise. See further:

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • With particular respect to the sciences, much discussion of post-PhD careers, and what happens to people who don't stay in research, can be found on the blogs at the Occam's Typewriter science blog collective Bloggers there include, inter alia, materials scientist Dame Athene Donald FRS and also Jenny Rohn from the Science is Vital campaign, both of whom have written a lot about science careers - see e.g. Athene Donald's post here: Nature editor Henry Gee is another blogger there, so the issues around journals, Impact Factors and so on also get an airing. Apologies for the plug. WRT Willett's remarks on REF, I suspect he means something like: 'If you can show that something was an especially important publication and made a lot of waves, it will not be ignored because it was in a less high-end journal." - which is self-evident anyway. But I can't believe anyone thinks that what journals you publish in is going to magically cease to matter. Dream on, as they say.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Save

Related images

  • David Willetts
  • Print
  • Share
  • Save