REF2014, the latest round of research assessment in the UK, was completed late in 2014.<\/p>\n
This micro-site contains the results of an analysis of the REF results for REF Sub-panel\u00a011 \u2013\u00a0Computer Science and Informatics, comparing the REF scores with citation-based scores.<\/p>\n
The main output of REF is an institution-by-institution research quality profile within different disciplines, However, The Computer Science and Informatics sub-panel also published\u00a0profiles for sub-areas of computing, which are, or have the potential, to influence decision making in computing departments<\/p>\n
The citation-based analysis suggests that, despite every effort to ensure fairness, substantial latent bias has emerged between these sub-areas. Not only does this mean that the REF computing sub-area profiles are misleading, but this may also have affected textual feedback to departments, funding to institutions and possibly gender neutrality.<\/p>\n
Draft report (v2,\u00a09th<\/sup> May 2015):\u00a0On REF and citations \u2013 how much can we read about sub-areas of computing?<\/a><\/p>\n Summary paper (draft v2,\u00a09th May 2015):\u00a0Citations and Sub-Area Bias in the UK Research Assessment Process<\/a><\/p>\n Note:<\/strong> The site author, Alan Dix<\/a>,\u00a0was a member of REF 2014 sub-panel 11 “Computer Science and Informatics”, and as such is bound by confidentiality. The analysis is therefore based solely on public domain data and processes, as described in the data<\/a> section.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" REF2014, the latest round of research assessment in the UK, was completed late in 2014. This micro-site contains the results of an analysis of the REF results for REF Sub-panel\u00a011 \u2013\u00a0Computer Science and Informatics, comparing the REF scores with citation-based … Continue reading