Talk:Research Assessment Exercise

message: Well I think that there are a lot of academics out there who want to get on their soap box about the "failings" of the RAE, I think as long as any Wikipedian contributions to the subject are properly referenced, then this is in keeping with the spirit of the thing.  Which hopefully this article will evolve into.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RapidAssistant (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 June 2006
:I am not sure how to interpret this. But in any case, it doesn't matter how thoroughly cited something is, it cannot be allowed to become a "soap box" (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, point 1). The contents of the article should be balanced, neutral and factual. Any soapboxing should be promptly edited out. -Splash - tk 15:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soap Box 

message: in the section on "Planned changes to RAE system", it mentions "STEM" fields.
The mention of "STEM" here should probably have a cross-reference to STEM.  However, that page has an entry for 
  STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)
(STEM fields) which says that the "M" stands for "Mathematics"
instead of "Medicine" (as stated here).
My suggestions: 
# change the mention of "STEM" here, to have (be) a cross-reference to STEM) ;
# change the word "Medicine" to "Mathematics"
(any comments?)
Mike Schwartz 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have a reference to the HFCE announcement on that rather than guessing what they meant. My guess is probably they did not intend to imply assessment of maths by metrics. Certainly the RAE pure and applied maths panel in 2008 states very clearly that they will not use any such measures, and there is generally an opinion in the UK mathematics community that these measures are flawed and open to manipulation. If there has been such an an announcement I would expect to see fur flying by now. So either cite a source or remove this section as speculation.Billlion 06:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the Guardian article and it clearly indicates that it understands Medicine to be in stem. I have reversed maths and Medicine. Unless anyone can find a more authorative source on what Gordon meant!Billlion 06:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  xref to [[STEM fields]], and suggest changing "Medicine" to "Mathematics" 

message: It strikes me as very odd that the article does not (in its current form) seem to mention how the RAE and the results of the RAE might have implication for both the careers of Researchers and also the funding that they receive.  Surely this is one of the most important functions and roles of the RAE (that it provides an indication of how much funding should be directed towards particular departments or even individual researchers)?  
Further, the article does not seem to mention the names of particular individuals who are important for the purposes of having created the RAE and who are responsible for administering the RAE - surely this is something which should be mentioned within the article too?
Has any research submission to the RAE ever found commercial application?  Does the RAE currently provide incentive towards capitalising upon the intellectual property/research carried out within universities?  These are just a few relevant parts of the article that do not seem to be commented upon.  
ConfusciousSays (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The RAE is quite a controversial subject and anything added to it neads to be WP:NPOV and WP:VER.  If there is a study published on the effect of the RAE on careers of researchers then we should cite it. As to who thought of it that would be interesting. I always assumed it was dreamed up by nameless civil servants. As to the third point. Yes almost certinaly RAE submitted research has been commercialised.  Universities in the UK do quite a bit of commercial exploitation at least of scientific ideas. But as only four papers are submitted to the RAE there will be plenty of commercialised work not submitted too. I could easily give examples, but it would constitue WP:OR and not be of much help either. Unless there is some sort of systematic survey of RAE imapct on commercialisation there is nothing we can put in the article.  That said the point of the RAE was not to support commercialisation of reseach, and of course there is plenty of incentives including generating revinue and research funding that does. I personally would be more interested, if someone can find a published study, is if teh RAE has succeeded in supporting basic science and fundamental research, and the impact of closure and expansionof university departments as a result of the RAE.Billlion (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation of the RAE to Academics' Funding

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Research Assessment Exercise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040814081339/http://www.hero.ac.uk:80/rae/ to http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Research Assessment Exercise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070720232304/http://www.rareview.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp to http://www.rareview.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218135000/http://www.researchresearch.com/RAE2008 to http://www.researchresearch.com/RAE2008
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Very out of date 86.18.148.124 (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs updating