John Pickering • May 01, 2019 •
8269 academics and their bosses have been alerted – the data is in, the numbers are crunched, PBRF scores are out. Who are the winners, who are the losers? Find out more with tec publication. But before you go there… I predict that any minute now tertiary institutions throughout … Read More
John Pickering • Jul 16, 2018 •
I’d like to say the end is nigh for the performance-based research fund (PBRF), full stop. A few months ago, I demonstrated how the expensive and tedious production of evidence portfolios by 7000 academic staff will do nothing to change the redistribution of research funding – the purported reason for PBRF. So, I’d like to … Read More
John Pickering • Dec 21, 2017 •
A few of weeks ago I outed the multi-million-dollar exercise that is the Quality Evaluation component of the performance based research fund (PBRF) as a futile exercise because there was no net gain in research dollars for the NZ academic community. Having revealed the Emperor’s new clothes, I awaited the call from the Minister in … Read More
John Pickering • Oct 18, 2017 •
Throughout the land, more than 7000 academics are awake night after night and suffering. They are scrambling to gather evidence of just how great they have performed over the last six years. A conscientious bunch, they perform this task with their usual attention to detail and desire to impress (I didn’t say they were modest!). Ostensibly, this exercise is … Read More
Michael Corballis • Aug 18, 2017 •
The way you score in academia seems to have changed down the years. Once, I remember, it was the number of articles you managed to publish that mattered. A couple per year got you through the ranks, and a book might nudge you through to a professorship, even if no one actually read it. Nobody cared too much where these … Read More
John Pickering • Jun 27, 2017 •
“We just got a paper in an Impact Factor 10 journal … and hope to go higher soon.” That’s a statement made to me last week. It is wrong on so many levels, but does it matter? Nobel Prize winners think so. The video below from nobelprize.org appeared in my twitter feed on Friday. Before you watch … Read More
Guest Author • Jan 13, 2017 •
By Andrew Gunn, University of Leeds and Michael Mintrom, Monash University. This year will see the Australian government pilot new ways to measure the impact of university research. As recommended by the Watt Review, the Engagement and Impact Assessment will encourage universities to ensure academic research produces wider economic and social benefits. This fits into … Read More
Siouxsie Wiles • Jun 03, 2014 •
Last week saw Science and Innovation Minister Steven Joyce release the National Statement on Scientific Investment, a lengthy document outlining how funding should be spent on science in NZ over the next decade. You can download the draft statement from here. The government have asked for feedback and we have until the 22nd August … Read More
John Pickering • Jan 20, 2014 •
I didn’t want to be in a position to write this post. I’ve procrastinated and debated whether I should or not – mainly because I don’t want it to come across as sour grapes. However, procrastination over… 2013 was a great year from the academic metrics point of view – many articles were written, twice … Continue reading → … Read More
- Wayne Linklater • Oct 29, 2013 •
University rankings can be useful. They can also be used inappropriately to discriminate inaccurately and unjustly. Dr. Mark Hauser at Harvard University – consistently amongst the world’s highest ranked universities – was found guilty of scientific miscounduct, fraudulent science in 2012 – an example of why the university a person is employed at is a poor metric of … Read More