Regarding your article on the balance between quality-related (QR) and research council funding ("Hands off the funding sacred cow?", 3 May): one major difference between the sources is the way that money reaches individual researchers. Research council cash is allocated to individual projects based on merit. The peer-review system may not be perfect, but it is a nationwide contest that anyone can enter and that makes a good attempt to reward the best. Small grants in particular are the lifeblood of many innovative projects and I would love to see more of them.
In contrast, QR money is spent according to the whims of each university. This can be haphazard and determined largely by politics (who shouts loudest and networks best). There are seldom open inter-university contests to allocate funds to the best research. Nor would such contests be easy to organise, because no one can judge if a physics project is better than a psychology project.
When it comes to funding the best research in the UK, directing a larger proportion of the budget to the research councils and reducing that allocated to QR must be the way to go. Please, more of the former and less of the latter.
Name and address withheld
Register to continue
Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.
Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:
- Sign up for the editor's highlights
- Receive World University Rankings news first
- Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
- Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?Sign in now