the potential problem, of course, is it doesn't screen for quality or soundness; and I've never been comfortable with the "someone somewhere has refereed this paper so you must trust it" line of attack.
But I'm really not sure the current system is doing much for soundness either...
isn't this the whole point of "Star Trek"? Spock always says "this is not a logical thing to do" but is always persuaded in the end by the power of human passion and leadership?
I actually find this a potentially highly positive shift. It shifts the narrative from "this work is globally interesting", a judgement system that has really messed up the literature, to "person X found this interesting". As long as there are enough person X's to choose between, that could work.
In fairness - I totally agree with the idea of journals that just want to add value (you know! I was saying at ASCB) or select scope.
But don't claim you're revolutionizing the science literature and eliminating gatekeeping.
Quis ianitobit ipsos ianitores?
The problem was that it was very strongly put forward by a number of the new system's protagonists (in an "if you disagree with us you're pro gatekeeping" sort of a way). Don't think the article invents the idea.
90% of articles have serious flaws? Dearie.
The "removing gatekeepers" argument is in any case spurious, and actually rather angry-making.
If you send them a paper they will reject it editorially 90% of the time. How then is there no gatekeeping? What is the alternative name for an editorial rejection?
Also with "brilliance led" or "intellect inspired" rather than "curiosity driven"?
My iphone doesn't know what a 'Poo Bah' is (I mean, relatively few teenagers do, so it's not interested) and changed it to 'poo bag'.
Surprising the level of nuance in that subtle autocorrection.
Note to self - be careful when sending emails to senior bosses that they are Poo Bahs...
Looking to apply for a UKRI, CRUK, Wellcome fellowship?
UCL's LMCB would be a fine place...
Extremely interesting. Hopeful.
Very plausible mechanism, too.
www.theguardian.com/society/2026...
No nurses, despite an ageing population with increasing needs in an age where healthcare is becming more demanding.
No scientists, even though world leaders are looking for looking for new homes for tomorrow's discoveries
Thank goodness for the clampdown!
www.theguardian.com/society/2026...
Expect the media to be full of a whole load of complaining over the next few years. Lots of it from people who want top services, for free even though they're stupendously costly; and who are happy to kick out the people who provided the service, but still expect someone to help them.
And - the people who voted for it (dominated by older folk) are the people who will be disproportionately hurt by it.
And - all were warned. It's not like this is a surprise.
No door to the butcher either. Very 2026.
even if they never learned to spell "hordes"
I know.
done
Try this
preply.com/en/learn/eng...
(I scored more than 500! Woo hoo!)
This is actually quite brilliant, up to and including the final sentence 🔥
Glory be.
As he says, unis are worried about QR getting canned; unis whose research is a bit slow are worried about it getting slower; the REF supports a huge ecosystem of jobs and titles and work.
But those of us who were around when the first RAE happened know - it was good, & it's now useless.
But that's not what's happening! All MRC grants are shut. All medical researchers who want an MRC grant will be unfunded for a year, whether they work in a priority area or not, if their PI's renewal falls between Last Sept and late this summer.
Not a sub-field, a career path :(
Yep, Andre, I'm agreeing with you.
Even if the process is perfect, there are not 60+ excellent, trustworthy referees for each grant. Peer review can't work with such numbers, it becomes a hyper-expensive stochasticity.
So no point at all fixing the criteria if you don't fix the numbers.
(4) I well remember the shift when Blair & Brown asked the pharma industry what they actually wanted. Turned out that universities concentrating on developing medicines etc was not it - they wanted well-trained, diversely-interested, future-facing PhDs.
Can't see a hint of that in current plans.
(3) the system could well do with an overhaul as you point out. But at the moment this seems to be doing the opposite of what it needs - establishing a complex, written, non-agile hierarchy of what the centre thinks should be researched in the next ?10 years.
Why not try & create an agile system?
the way you've used italics and inversted commas makes me think you concur.
(2) part of this I don't understand - a cohort of young scientists will be unexpectedly kicked out, in 1-2 years. Randomly, based on when their employer's funding fails. This is obvious but nobody's screaming about it?
A few comments:
(1) the term "curiosity-driven research" is both completely inaccurate (try to get the MRC to fund a project based on curiosity, not a disease with an unmet need...) and damagingly misleading (fits UKRI's narrative of a load of shamateurs pootling about, and demeans the process).
Essentially doesn't matter if 96.4% is not funded; peer review simply doesn't work on such margins.
But agreed a new process is obviously needed.
As opposed to, for example, suddenly stopping the funding that pays young researchers' salaries for a year or so...
