At the beginning of the year, the academic world was abuzz with discussion about the assessment of academic excellence and the new REF. For years academic researchers had felt that they were not heard by the powers that be, but this proved different. HEFCE did make concessions on the REF based on feedback from the academic community, including the addition of peer review (though what is meant by “light touch” has yet to be determined) and to implement the REF for STEM and non STEM areas at the same time. Was this a small victory for academics?

Since then however, there is little debating going on. Don’t get me wrong, articles are still written and published about it, but the tone is slightly different. One might say the REF has now been accepted. HEFCE have selected the participants for the pilot run and even launched a site You Are The REF where you can figure out how the REF will affect your research standing.

But in the background, all is not well and settled; individuals and organisations are still talking about problems raised by the REF. These issues include the role and value of the current metrics system, at the value of alternative metrics-based systems, and the potential impact on open access policies. Many are also questioning the effect these exercises could have on academic research, and career progression to name a few outstanding problems. All of which must be solved if the UK is to stay at the forefront of academic research. This is why it is still imperative to keep the discussion of the REF in the headlines.