London

The seven-point scale used to assess research in British university departments could be scrapped under plans unveiled on 28 May.

The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), a five-yearly audit of research, is widely credited with strengthening British science. But scientists have complained that the rankings are sometimes arbitrary, and give no credit to good researchers working in average departments.

Under the proposal, drawn up by Gareth Roberts, president of Wolfson College at the University of Oxford, each researcher's work would be allocated between zero and three stars, and each department's 'score' would be the sum of the scores of its individual researchers, providing a measure of the overall volume of quality work produced.

Roberts says that individual ratings would not be published, but sceptics doubt whether the scores could be kept from researchers. “How will that information be denied them?” asks Keith Peters, an immunologist at the University of Cambridge and president of the Academy of Medical Sciences. Roberts concedes that individual rankings should not be used if they cannot be kept secret.

Roberts' review, which was commissioned by the UK higher-education funding councils, also suggests separating out the least research-intensive universities and subjecting them to a shorter review process. That idea has drawn fire from some of the smaller universities. “It is divisive,” says Mike Saks, pro-vice-chancellor for research at the University of Lincoln. The university received just £250,000 this year from the funding councils, but Saks says it has begun a major drive to improve its research and doesn't want to be put in a second class of institutions.

The funding councils, which distribute £1.1 billion (US$1.8 billion) to universities each year, largely on the basis of the RAE, are accepting comments on the new plan until September. They will then decide how to do the next assessment, most likely in 2007.

→ http://www.rareview.ac.uk