Our response highlights the need to recognise and accommodate interdisciplinarity, and need for continuity from REF 2014.
Our response reiterates the position that metrics cannot adequately capture originality, significance and rigour of academic outputs
We express concerns over proposed embargo periods, and argue for a review of HEFCE policy on OA to identify and mitigate any emerging negative consequences.
Our reponse argues for clearer wording of criteria, point-of-publication access to outputs, and distinct HEFCE policy on embargoes and licensing.
We argue the proposals penalise geography' success; that teaching costs, particularly from fieldwork, have been underestimated; and that HEFCE's approach rewards higher-fee institutions.
Our response to the HEFCE consultation on REF2014 criteria and methods calls for greater consistency across main panel criteria and methods, and highlights omissions in descriptors for geography.
Our response to HEFCE's consultation on proposed changes allocation methods for the research degree programme supervision fund welcomes increased funding and encourages the linkage of funding with research quality.
Our response summarises and highlights community views on the proposals for REF, conveying support for dual funding, non-STEM mode of assessment, and discipline-based peer-review. This response refers to what ultimately became REF2014.
By placing a booking, you are permitting us to store and use your (and any other attendees) details in order to fulfil the booking.
We will not use your details for marketing purposes without your explicit consent.
You must be a member holding a valid Society membership to view the content you are trying to access. Please login to continue.
Join us today, Society membership is open to anyone with a passion for geography
Cookies on the RGS website