British Universities Produce More Depth of world-leading research than previously thought results of great exercise in learning the output and real-world influence of 76,000 academics in offered by the UK.
results of in research excellence framework (REF) looking at work produced from 2014 to 2021, founded on rating nearly 186,000 pieces of academic research, with in results used to separate up about £2 billion in annual government financing.
According to experts, results show that Oxford and University College London are likely to receive the most share of government research grants based on high share of their departments rated as “world leading”.
But in general results showed small decline in proportion of Top class research along the golden triangle of Cambridge, Oxford and London Universities and showed big pockets of High Quality research in smaller institutions.
university of Northumbria was one of the biggest winners with This research output in health-related fields such as nursing and engineering receive a high share of the best ratings.
Andrew Watie, Vice Chancellor of Northumbria, said his university has risen from 52nd to 28th. in market share of future funding”moves us clearly on the territory of the former reserve of Russell Group” of universities like global force in research. Northumbria is first modern university to cross clear blue water that separated old and new parts of sector and others are following,” Wati said.
Sign up on First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7:00 am Moscow time.
Two-year- long peer review found that 41% of research presented was worthy of “world leadingrating of four stars, while 43% received three stars as “internationally excellent”. 2014 REF rated 22% of research as world leading but senior leaders said the increase was result of improved submissions and changes in how exercise was run.
Reforms since 2014 forced universities to include all teaching staff with significant research participation in their submissions. But this also they gave a lot of flexibility in how many pieces of research can be presented for every member, including for employees whose careers were interrupted during this period.
At REF 2014, about 52,000 scientists submitted 190,000 submissions. of workbye in 2021 76,000 employees submitted 185,600 pieces of research including books and journal articles.
David Sweeney, Executive Chairman of The study of England, said that the reforms made impossible to compare results. “I think we see that research in The UK is still very, very strong and maybe even a little stronger. But we are talking about a different indicator,” he said.
professor Dina Birch, who Headed the Arts and Humanities Department of REF. review panel, said the differences were far-reaching. “It’s a different exercise and lining up REF 2021 results against those of 2014 will be misleading,” she said.
Birch said of ‘dizzying variety’ of research was presented. “All from fiction of Anthony Trollope, nature of particles that make up up substance of Universe, to identification of new materials for manufacturing innovation,” she said.
Rankings are calculated by Research Professional News, a specialized publication that tracks funding. found that oxford “market share” of funding is likely to fall from 6.24% in 2014, after previous REF, up 5.7%.
rankings also showed that Lancaster and Loughborough Universities are better results than two members of Russell Group of research- intensive universities, with Lancaster over Queen’s University Belfast and London School of Economy.
Sarah Richardson, editor of Research Professional News, said REF results were decisive in giving universities access longer-term, more flexible flows of quality-related financing. “Very important for universities and researchers because it pays for their current expenses like salaries and seed funding for projects and it helps them plan for and invest in research capacity, not just financing research project on project”, Richardson said.
Joe Grady, general secretary of Union of Universities and Colleges said REF was a leak on staff time and resources, describing it as “a symbolic of a research obsessed with culture with arbitrary definition of institutions or departments as winners or losers.
