1. The 'News In Brief' post for w/c 8th October is now available Guest, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Matthew Hotopf on panel deciding criteria for assessing research in REF2021

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS News' started by Esther12, Mar 24, 2018.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,179
    Likes Received:
    17,924
    http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref,2021/downloads/Criteria phase panel membership - updated 23.03.18.pdf

    REF2021 is an important process for assessing the quality of research from UK universities, and can have a big impact on future funding that they attract.

    REF2014 was full of BS spun submissions about how much great research on CFS had been done by White/Sharpe/etc/etc. It seemed like this all sailed through.

    Hotopf often co-authors with Wessely, and seemed unable to understand problems with research like PACE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585442/

    I've tried to find ways of drawing attention to problems with the REF2014 process, but have failed. I don't even really know how the REF2014 process assessed submissions on things like PACE. It would be good if REF2021 didn't turn into a celebration of hype and quackery.
     
  2. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    2,636
    Likes Received:
    13,730
    Location:
    UK
    Most research seems to involves a lot of hype so that may be hard.
     
    Solstice, Esther12 and Barry like this.
  3. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    2,572
    I have no specific knowledge, but this seems to be a very important topic.

    Could we as a group ask them for clarification of their views on monitoring such as outcome switching and collecting subjects response before trial registration, and their views on using only subjective outcomes in unblinded trials? Presenting these in the context of high levels of spending in the UK on research on the BPS approaches to ME in contrast to minimal spending on biomedical research. EG the prestigious UK Biobank has had to rely on patient and charitable contributions and (albeit not insignificant) international funding.

    It could be that they will ignore (corrected typo) this, but at least it puts them on notice.
     
    ScottTriGuy, Solstice, Trish and 3 others like this.
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,179
    Likes Received:
    17,924

Share This Page