The research assessment exercise has become a competitive game in which the better players (not necessarily the better researchers) win through blatant manipulation of data ("Staff lose out in wily bids for RAE cash," THES , July 6).
Surely we can implement a fairer system that rewards excellence in research, rather than excellence in gamesmanship? A more transparent system would be one that incl-uded all staff, including part-timers, and a fuller, more accurate picture would emerge.
We encourage our students to be open, honest and have integrity. It is a shame that we so readily abandon our principles when money is at stake.
School of the Built Environment
Leeds Metropolitan University