Martin Weller and Juliette White have been discussing the frustrations of the RAE for bloggers.
The RAE system has done nothing but damage and distort higher education and much original research in the UK (and waste huge sums of public money) ever since it was introduced:
The RAE has had a disastrous impact on the UK higher education system, leading to the closure of departments with strong research profiles and healthy student recruitment. It has been responsible for job losses, discriminatory practices, widespread demoralisation of staff, the narrowing of research opportunities through the over-concentration of funding and the undermining of the relationship between teaching and research (source).
But in the biological and medical sciences field at least, the progress towards open access publishing has been staggering over the last year. Recently there have been further developments such as Nature Preceedings, although this lacks the gold standard of scientific research, peer review. PLoS One does a much better job by incorporating community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating.
Perhaps the answer to RAE is to develop a system of peer review for bloggers. Technorati or the Google algorithms don't fully address this need, and PLoS One is based on the traditional academic paper structure for submissions rather than blogging architechture. Digg and other content voting systems are open to too much gaming (although no worse than the way universities currently gameplay the RAE system) and are not transparent.
So who's going to build PLoS One for academic bloggers?