1 / 23

REF 2014 kick-off meeting

REF 2014 kick-off meeting. Alistair Fitt, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research and Knowledge Transfer. Agenda – 12 th January. THE REF STARTS HERE!. Of course it doesn’t really The outputs started ages ago For many the work is already done really

alida
Download Presentation

REF 2014 kick-off meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REF 2014 kick-off meeting Alistair Fitt, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research and Knowledge Transfer

  2. Agenda – 12th January

  3. THE REF STARTS HERE! • Of course it doesn’t really • The outputs started ages ago • For many the work is already done really • ….. but we have to think about everything else, like: • Detailed rules • Impact • Environment • Staff inclusion/exclusion etc. etc.

  4. Dual Research funding in the UK RCUK Public money given to the Research Councils to run competitions (“grants”) to distribute money to universities. The competitions sort of go on continuously and about £3 bn is available each year (AHRC, BBSRC, EPSRC, ESRC, MRC, NERC, STFC) REF Public money distributed to universities (about £1.6 bn per year) via a once-every-seven-years competition where each university enters its best researchers. BRUTAL!

  5. Teaching funding in the UK HEFCE Public money given to Universities – about £4.5 bn per year for teaching – universities considered to be a public good CANCELLED BY THE COALITION – BILL SENT TO STUDENTS!

  6. Total public spending in the UK TOTAL PUBLIC SPENDING 2012 ~ £703 bn COMPLETE TOTAL FOR RESEARCH ~ £5 bn per year (< 1%)

  7. Give us the money!

  8. We win anyway. So there. UK – 1% of population 13.8% of highly-cited papers

  9. This meeting – these UoAs Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing & Pharmacy: UoA 3 (2,939 FTE,12,598 outputs) Biological Sciences: UoA 5 (2,938 FTE, 12,245 outputs) Agriculture, Veterinary and Food Science: UoA 6 (1,016 FTE, 4,203 outputs) Sports-Related Studies: UoA 26 (500 FTE, 2,015 outputs) – main panel C (any others ???) We have not decided our detailed submission tactics yet – will depend on further outputs Main panel A

  10. Random Reminders • 2* research WILL NOT be funded but IS internationally excellent • Willetts & Cable – “no concentration” • Everybody is equally in the game • We want to get much more than our current £4m per year QR • Same 4-3-2-1-0 –starred research scale • Outputs 65% Impact 20% Environment 15% • Membership of all panels and sub-panels is public knowledge • 36 UoAs rather than 67 in RAE 2008 • Census date 31st October 2013

  11. QR algorithm AHP 2011 - £11,470 Bio, Agric 2011 - £13,902 Sports-related 2011 - £8,911 (Phil £5.5K) HOW IS THE MONEY CALCULATED? • Of course they don’t tell us – we’d optimize!!! • Current algorithm is QR = ((9x4*) + (3x3*) + (0.294x2*) + (0x1*)) x (FTE) x (£ QUANTUM) • Next year QR = ((9x4*) + (3x3*) + (0x2*) + (0x1*)) x (FTE) x (£ QUANTUM) • REF2014 guess: QR = ((4x4*) + (1x3*) + (0x2*) + (0x1*)) x (FTE) x (£ QUANTUM)

  12. More detailed timetable October 5th - panel consultation was closed Autumn 2012: submission system pilot Census date: 31st October 2013 Submission closing date: 29th November 2013 December 2014: RESULTS!!! Outputs window: 1/1/2008 – 31/12/2013 Grant income and PhDs window: 1/8/2008 – 31/7/2013 Research Environment window: 1/1/2008 – 31/7/2013 Case study impact window: 1/1/2008 – 31/7/2013 Impact underpinning research: 1/1/1993 – 31/12/2013 Impact support window: 1/1/2008 – 31/7/2013 Suggested 1/1/1988 for architecture ONLY !!

  13. What will we submit? REF1a/b/c: Information on staff in post on the census date, 31 October 2013, selected by the institution to be included in the submission. REF2: Details of publications and other forms of assessable output which they have produced during the publication period (1 January 2008 to 31 December 2013). Up to four outputs must be listed against each member of staff included in the submission. REF3a/b: A completed template describing the submitted unit’s approach during the assessment period (1 January 2008 to 31 July 2013) to enabling impact from its research, and case studies describing specific examples of impacts achieved during the assessment period, underpinned by excellent research in the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2013. REF4a/b/c: Data about research doctoral degrees awarded and research income related to the period 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2013. REF5: A completed template describing the research environment, related to the period 1 January 2008 to 31 July 2013.

  14. More detailed issues Double-weighted outputs (abridged) – MAIN PANEL A 42 The main panel recognises that there may be cases where the combined scale of academic investment in the research activity and the intellectual scope of the research output are considerably greater than the disciplinary norm, thereby limiting the capacity of an individual researcher to produce four outputs within the assessment period. Therefore, sub-panels will consider requests for outputs to be double-weighted and to count as two outputs in both a submission in a UOA and in the calculation of the outputs sub-profile. 43 Institutions may request that outputs are treated as double-weighted outputs using a statement to justify their claim in REF2 (maximum 50 words). 44 In requesting double-weighting of an output, institutions should reduce the number of outputs submitted for that individual by one per double-weighting request. 45 No ‘reserves’ may be submitted in the UOAs within Main Panel A. Where the sub-panel does not accept the case for an output to be double-weighted, the output will be assessed as one output and the ‘missing’ output will be graded as ‘unclassified’. (NOT AS GENEROUS AS PANELS C or D!)

  15. More detailed issues Double-weighted outputs (abridged) – MAIN PANEL C 56 Main Panel C recognises that there may be some cases where the combined scale of academic investment in the research activity and intellectual scope of the research output is equivalent to two single outputs, and may have limited the ability of an individual researcher to produce four high quality outputs within the assessment period. The sub-panels may recognise and double-weight such outputs, where requested by the submitting HEI. 57 Without privileging or disadvantaging any particular form of research or type of output, the sub-panels anticipate that double-weighted work should reasonably have required exceptional research effort. 58 Institutions may identify for double-weighting outputs they consider to be worthy of double-weighting and should use a supporting statement to justify their claim (max 100 words). Sub-panels will assess the claim for double-weighting separately from assessing the quality of the submitted work. Where the claim for double-weighting is accepted the assessment of the output will be given a double weight in the outputs quality sub-profile. If the claim is not accepted then the item will be treated as a single output and the ‘missing’ output will be graded as ‘unclassified’. No reserve item may be submitted. (NOT AS GENEROUS AS MAIN PANEL D!)

  16. More detailed issues MATERNITY LEAVE Original HEFCE proposal: “ -1 output for each 14 months” Widely regarded as a step back Universal opinion at REF regional meetings, consultations etc.: “ -1 outputs for each pregnancy” – will probably prevail STOP PRESS - WE WON THAT ONE!

  17. More detailed issues AM I IN OR OUT? We have to develop an institutional Code of Practice This will discuss how we make the decisions about who is included and who is excluded Stop press – we now have a timetable for this CoP requires us to identify in/out at some stage …. and give sufficient time for appeals CoP also should detail appeals process

  18. More detailed issues CITATION DATA (main panel A – abridged) 50 In accordance with ‘guidance on submissions’ (paragraphs 133 to 136), all sub-panels within Main Panel A will make use of citation data, where it is available, as an indicator of the academic impact of the outputs 51 Citation data will be used where available and appropriate, and only as a minor component to inform peer-review judgements. Sub-panels will only use citation data that has been provided by the REF team, at a pre-determined date in a standard format. Where used, citation data will be considered as a positive indicator of the academic significance of the research output. This will only be one element to inform peer-review judgements about the quality of the output, and will not be used as a primary tool in the assessment. NOTE – the panels that are using citation data are using SCOPUS – very controversial!

  19. More detailed issues CITATION DATA (main panel C – abridged) 65 Sub-panels 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 will neither receive nor make use of citation data, or any other form of bibliometric analysis. 66 No sub-panel within Main Panel C will use journal impact factors or any hierarchy of journals in their assessment of outputs. 67 Sub-panels 17 (Geography, Environmental Studies and Archaeology) and 18 (Economics and Econometrics) will receive and may make use of citation data, where they are available and considered appropriate. Sub-panel 17 may make use of citation data for some areas of physical geography and environmental studies, consistent with the practice in UOA 7 (Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences). It will not use citation in respect of the archaeology outputs that it assesses, nor for human geography. No statement about this in main panel A guidance

  20. More detailed issues 74 IMPACT

  21. More detailed issues 156 Table 1: Number of case studies required in submissions

  22. More detailed issues 156 Table 1: Number of case studies required in submissions Bloggs has a 4* impact case. Underlying research done in 1994, Bloggs died in 2001 Do we hire “research private eyes”? We may need 40 case studies! NOTE: if you submit say 14 people: 56 outputs for 65% = 1.16% per output 2 impact studies for 20% = 10% per study Better get the impact right!

  23. More detailed issues CHEATING!!! REF OPTIMIZATION PDRAs are not “independent researchers” and so cannot be included Some HEIs will just make them members of staff – we could as well Retired staff are not normally on the payroll and so cannot be included They could be un-retired – “newly 1.0” FTE staff could be fired & re-hired “BUY-IN” staff have to be IN POST and CONTRIBUTING to be allowed This can be arranged if we can find suitable people PLEASE THINK ABOUT ALL OF THESE THINGS

More Related