Performance of the UK Research Base
Branwen Hide
Friday, 02 October 2009 12:19 UTC
The BIS has recently published a report comparing the UK’s research performance against 25 other nations and includes data from such sources as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Eurostat, the UN, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Thomson Scientific and the statistics portals of individual national governments.
Some of the key findings:
• the UK share of citations in science journals across the world is 12%, second only to the USA.
• the UK increased its share of the most cited (or top 1%) of world papers from 13.4 percent last year to 14.4 percent.
• the UK received a “citation impact” – the average citation rate of a paper – which placed the UK second in the G8, ahead of the USA but behind Germany.
• the UK produced 8 percent of the world’s scientific papers, third only to the USA and China
For more information see the press release.
-
Replies
-
The UK has for a long time performed “above its weight” as it were (per capita) and one could add the number of Nobels if that is considered a useful assessment. The problem is that the government has altered the way it funds research with the emphasis now being on “useful”, practical applications. Effectively, this means that were Crick and Watson looking into the structure of DNA today, they might find it difficult to obtain adequate funding. If you don’t like this example, think of one where the problem has no immediate, or even any, application to a current practical problem but is important in its own right. History is replete with this sort of thing. I worry that this funding bias may be great enough to lead to the UK falling behind in the “production” of “big ideas”. Perhaps my concerns are misplaced.
-
I just don’t know what I think about this and I wonder if in truth the devil is in the detail.
I remember (increasingly dimly) a dissertation I had to write on speciation that relied largely on research conducted (ostensibly) to fight fruit pests and delouse military uniforms. The pure (for want of a better word) science was kind of ‘on the side’. I’m also conscious that there is a hell of a lot of science yet to be done and new things are as likely to be found in one place as another. And the ‘discipline’ of artificial constraints is not to be underrated.
But that said, I can’t stand the thought that nothing is done purely for it’s own sake (as long as we’re not testing the theory that a rhino is going to appear in my office by magic). (Still waiting…)
-
I have heard that actually the research councils spend more on basic research than on applied research but whether or not his will contiune remains to be seen. There is a lot of worry that with impact accounting for 35% of the REF that this will all change – though we have still yet to find out what they mean by ‘imapct’ and exactly how this will be measured.
-
Certainly as things stand you are of course correct that there are many sources of funds for non-theme-du-jour-specific topics (there is a much deeper emergent fashion concerning what is a hot/worthy topic, but that is arguably legit). And I guess (and have heard from all levels) that this will continue. So I don’t mean to froth (much).
I suppose the real issue is any waste of what should have been normal funds, and by extension more people than necessary not making the cut through lack of resource. You can spin what you do as fighting ‘flu or foreigners (sorry couldn’t resist the alliteration), and in some cases there may be a real need for a push in a particular area, but to most I think initiatives come across as much more about a science minister’s profile in the media than about ‘improving’ (define at will) science. (And of course the science minister is only reacting to whatever the papers blew out of proportion last week/month/year anyway.)
Anyway all that said, from the above data, it appears that as a nation in science, we ROCK :D
-
And in fact, to address your comment properly Branwen, the REF effect may well like what I described but without the minister in the loop: namely (and in short), the media driving science, because whatever we think about academic rigour in publishing, the effect of a media spotlight is significant.
-
impact accounting for 35% of the REF
The REF does not have a direct effect on what Research Councils do, it is just about HEFCE funding.
-
acutally it is 25% not 35% – not sure where the 35% came from…sorry
-
yes the REF only influnces hefce funding but it is still a substanial amount of money for the univeristies. It is also very impartant to those subject areas where a large number of researchers are not research council funded.
-
To second Branwen re. the REF’s impact on the kind of science being funded, by RCs or other source:
- rae/ref results and the pressure to score at the next exercise weighs significantly in the balance when it comes to attracting/recruiting new PIs: the kind of research area (the trendier the better), pub record (same as previous: more likely to publish if your research is sexy), capacity to attract grants (more relevant to RCs, see following two points)
- RCs do have to prove the impact of the science they fund, and increasingly so: see EPSRC’s website for details and AHRC’s as a exemple of how an RC might encourage scholars into certain types of “impactful” activities
- I have been told RCs had insisted early on on impact weighing significantly on the final ref equation (anyone knows anything about this?)
sorry to chime in so late, hope this re-launches the discussion ;)
-
My point was that RCs have their own mechanisms for evaluating research proposals and past research performance, quite distinct from the REF. And all the intramural research in RC Institutes is quite untouched by the REF, being rather subject to RC Quinquennial Review processes.
People in Universities often talk as though the REF was the only scientific review process but it is just one part of the picture.
-
