It's summer, so the UK academic promotion notices are appearing. (Congrats all!) But, can we have a word about some changes in referee forms? I've always done quite a few of these and in the past I have enjoyed engaging as a colleague with someone's overall career trajectory 1/

It's great to sit down and review how the threads of someone's research have come together in ways that now consitute a significant body of work, and to learn more about how that informs their teaching and citizenship. These can be very pleasurable letters to write 2/

However, universities are increasingly sending out forms to complete that are both very demanding and disjointed; asking for individual reviews of papers (often using REF criteria), evidence of research income, impacts, and PhD profile. This feels like a very different process 3/

I am also increasingly unsure what I am being asked to add. Many of the university criteria will be answerable by the data they already hold. Am I just meant to be repeating the work of internal or external REF reviewers? (External REF reviewers who are normally paid too) 4/

Here's one eg from this year. I had to evaluate did the person make: "a significant contribution to a minimum of 4 outputs in the most recent 6 year period including some which are likely to achieve rating 4* (using REF criteria) and with none of these four outputs below 3*." 5/

I suspect these are drafted on the basis that someone thinks they are more objective, hence will make promotion fairer. However, their effect is to communicate a very narrow and instrumental case for promotion that is likely to run counter to equality and diversity initiatives 6/

I'll happily continue to review and support colleagues who make a case for promotion, and would like to help widen the diversity of criteria on which these cases may be considered. But I'd ask universities to request only information they don't already have from referees 7/