One of the rules of the game ("To win the global game, providers must pay to play", THES, May 26) should be transparency. We would all benefit if your "spirit of openness" was achieved in the research assessment exercise by a completely open and public process There is one way this might be achieved. If it was stipulated that RAE documentation submitted by each department would be available to external users in standard format as a webpage, the "games" played would probably plummet.
If the risk of discovery of dishonesty was high and the risk that a substantial penalty would be imposed should such dishonesty be discovered was absolute - how much gamesmanship do you think there would be?
The RAE has done much to reveal talent where it was previously unacknowledged and raised research output in many institutions where it was previously neglected.
Although it may be expensive and time-consuming, it is probably the best thing to happen in higher education in the past 20 years. For all its failings and costs, an RAE system is infinitely better than the alternative of not assessing research. The crucial question then is: can we trust the procedures adopted to collect information, assess research output and reward past performances and future promises?
Peter Wardley
School of history