Where next for the research assessment exercise?

Dear Editor,

Your editorial is indeed thought provoking [1]. At the outset, let
us acknowledge that researchers are a different personality altogether.
All kudos to them and they well deserve the credit for all the better
understanding and immense rapid progress that we see all around. The
genes and a particular bent of mind with logic, vision, insight, and
craving go into making a researcher and environmental influences tend to
bring out the best from them. Well-established research institutions
providing congenial environment probably serve as a potent stimulant for
them, which should be encouraged. Nevertheless, smaller institutes and
very insignificant at that may come out with exceptionally bright ideas
and must invoke our assistance and commitment. Then at times certain
circumstances may be appealing and quite intriguing by themselves and can
prod even an uninterested on to do further research – at one’s own behest,
irrespective of any institutional support, funding, etc, and all that in
one’s own private time. Maybe some encouragement, recognition, and
support ought to be reserved for the last category as well.

We need not continue reinventing the wheel. However, research on
pure sciences is akin to that being done for building blocks, over which
future directions and researches would be based. Therefore to think it as
a waste must be reconsidered. Additionally, team work should be
encouraged. Maybe with better coordination and team work, even the
riskier and long term research projects can be undertaken and accomplished
successfully. Facilities of internet and other rapid innovations of
information technology have already opened up new vistas, creating
potentials for multi-centre trials and research with improvement in cross-
professional contact and sharing of innovations and research ideas.
Riskier and longer term researches can and should also be undertaken more
deliberately.

The propensity by a few to tarnish the image by plagiarism,
falsifying data, outcome and results, unethical research practices,
competing interests, etc, must be checked and discouraged. Maybe our
system is at fault to a certain extent that provides a fast track based on
the quantum of publications. Therefore in the bid to outdo others certain
areas are transgressed or bypassed, bringing in a bad repute. Probably
yet another skill being honed in is the “football-style transfer market”,
that’s mentioned [1], by institutions for the sake of refurbishing the
reputation, maybe with wanton desire to sway the benefactors decisions in
their favour. Who do you blame- the institution, the “expert footballer”,
gullible benefactors, or the changed system and then the question of where
to start to set the things right (if we ever consider it)?

With warm regards.

Reference:

1. Fiona Godlee. Where next for the research assessment exercise?
BMJ 2006;332, doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7548.0-f

Competing interests:
None declared