'Random slaughter offset by poaching' (2 of 3)

August 16, 2012

It is certainly odd that Simon Gaskell's response to his critics devotes very little space to their criticisms. He says that the criteria used to fire people "were based on generally recognised academic expectations". Nothing could be further from the truth: simply counting papers (not even weighting them) and using journal impact factor to measure their quality are methods that were utterly discredited years ago.

Queen Mary's Frequently Asked Questions: Restructures and Reviews in Academic Departments 2011-12 document states that the "research-related metrics" used in the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences are the result of "extensive consultation with staff and include both the Australian (Research Council) journal classification system as well as impact factor".

But a year ago, Kim Carr, at that time the Australian minister for innovation, industry, science and research, said that setting targets for publication in A and A* journals had encouraged "ill-informed, undesirable behaviour in the management of research". This had led him "to remove the rankings, based on the ARC's expert advice".

It seems that Gaskell is unaware of this, since he is enforcing the "ill-informed, undesirable behaviour in the management of research" that Australia has dropped.

The UK has dropped it, too. Is Gaskell not aware of the instructions for the research excellence framework? They state: "No sub-panel will make any use of journal impact factors, rankings, lists or the perceived standing of publishers in assessing the quality of research outputs."

The people Gaskell seeks to please have condemned his methods. If that is not "bringing your university into disrepute", I don't know what is.

David Colquhoun, Professor of pharmacology, University College London

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

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

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns