The RAE is dead; long live the REF.1 We’re talking research quality: what’s good and what’s not; what’s worth doing and what isn’t. But how is good quality to be defined? And to what extent should that judgment take account not only of the intellectual excellence of a research programme but also, in the case of medicine, its value to clinical practice? The question is a live one, and set to become livelier. One answer may lie in a still embryonic form of appraisal: the “social impact” of research.

For the benefit of readers who don’t follow the vicissitudes of the research community, the more familiar of these three letter abbreviations, RAE, stands for research assessment exercise: the process by which, until last year, the Higher Education Funding Council of England surveyed the quality of research carried out in British universities. The REF, the research excellence framework,2 is its replacement. In a nutshell, the old system was based principally on peer review of an academic department’s research, while the new one will rely far more on metrics: a raft of statistical measures of the research under scrutiny. These could include a department’s total non-government research income, the number of its postgraduates, and—worrisome to some—a bibliometric analysis of its research output.

Universities take understandable pride in being able to quote good research ratings—but there’s more at stake here than academic egos. The assessment figures are used to determine how research funds are allocated.