Recent articles..

£4m collaborative R&D funding now open ! – Protecting data in industry

£4m collaborative R&D funding now open ! - 23 March 2015

Innovate UK is to invest up to £4 million in collaborative research and development (R&D) projects that tackle the growing risks of disruption to internet-enabled businesses and their digital supply. More information on this competition.

Competition Briefing Events - 25 March onwards at several locations

The event is an excellent opportunity for you to receive first hand information about the competition – its scope, application process, key dates etc. as well as meet and network with peers, potential partners, market leaders & innovators in the industry. More information & event registration page.

For queries about this competition, please contact


Picture the scene… it’s 2016 the 1st April 2016 to be precise and you’ve had an article you have been working on for the past 6 months accepted by your first choice journal – well done you – you spend the next 3 months eagerly waiting to read your hard work in print. When it finally it is published you are ecstatic, it is well  received by your colleagues, peers, journalists and the public – your research is out there and making a real impact to society, you couldn’t have imagined a better reception. Well done you again!

Now fast-forward to submission of the next REF where you enthusiastically submit your lovingly crafted, well received, well cited article for submission with the full expectation that it will certainly be assessed as a 4* publication but then the bomb drops… the article is “UNCLASSIFIED”. Why I hear you cry?! Well back in 2016 when your article was accepted you did not make it open access – simple.

HEFCEs decision on non-compliance of their Open Access Policy really couldn’t be clearer in this aspect:

“Any output submitted to the post-2014 REF that falls within the scope of this policy but does not meet its requirements or exceptions will be treated as non-compliant. Non-compliant outputs will be given an unclassified score and will not be assessed in the REF.”

We have 12 months to get ready for to comply with HEFCEs Open Access policy and we have to start now. Only the author and the publisher know when an article is accepted and this is the key point for the policy. So, if you want to have the full benefit of all your hard work, then make sure that when an article is accepted by a publisher you upload it to BRIAN – simple.

For further information on how to you go about making your outputs open access, please see the guidance here. Email with queries or attend one of our Open Access Workshops over the next few months.

Further information on HEFCEs policy can be found here

BU Academic’s Major International Engagement and Esteem

Dr Zulfiqar Khan FIMechE, CEng, SFHEA

Dr Zulfiqar Khan (Associate Professor), Director Sustainable Design Research Centre SciTech has been invited to Chair Surface Engineering Track at the STLE (Society of Tribologists & Lubrication Engineers) 70th Annual Meeting & Exhibition May 2015.

Zulfiqar is leading the Surface Engineering Technical Committee as Vice-Chair. He is also Technical Editor of Tribology & Lubrication Technology (TLT), STLE’s official membership publication. Around 126 STLE members were invited to submit a case for support to become technical editor, only 17 were selected, of whom Zulfiqar is the only non-US member of the technical committee.

He has been actively engaged and making significant contributions to the STLE since May of 2008, as conference track Chair, Vice-chair, Paper Solicitation Chair and is currently leading the selection process of the Surface Engineering 2015 best paper award.

SLTE mission is “to advance the science of tribology and the practice of lubrication engineering in order to foster innovation, improve the performance of equipment and products, conserve resources and protect the environment.” [STLE website].

STLE is serving the needs of more than 10, 000 members and over 150 industrial partners within the Tribology & Lubrication Engineering sector. STLE has a 24 member elected board with elected president (annual) who leads STLE as CEO and heads the board as Chair, 23 technical committees and councils and has an annual budget of around 2.25 million USD [STLE website].

If you would like to know more or have interests to get involved please contact Dr Zulfiqar Khan directly.

Institute for Studies in Landscapes and Human Evolution (ISLHE): Come and find out more over cake and coffee!!

Are you an archaeologist, computer scientist, ecologist, animator, anthropologist, palaeoanthropologist working in a Professional Service? ….

Or simply interested in landscapes and how they influenced human evolution?

If so why not drop by and find out more about BU’s newly launched Institute for Studies in Landscape and Human Evolution (ISLHE) at 1.30 PM on the 25th March (TAG01).  We would like to invite BU staff to an opportunity to find out more and see how they might get involved over coffee.

ISLHE’s research agenda focuses around the role of landscape process in driving human evolution.  What drove the evolution of our species?  Why did some species of the human family tree become extinct while others did not?  What role did climate change and landscape process in Africa play in guiding this evolution?  These are fundamental questions about our own origins and what drove our evolution.  The research agenda focuses on tackling these questions from a landscape-based perspective integrating a wide range of fields anthropology, archaeology, palaeoanthropology, ecology, remote sensing of modern analogues with both earth and computer science.

Working both in the field and using computer modelling we hope to tackle some of these questions over the next few years.  Another key part of our agenda is to work with computer animators to bring our science alive in the imagination of both scientific and popular audiences.

Join us to find out more!!

BU academic visits Qatar University to discuss interdisciplinary research on cybersecurity

Posted in BU research by ssquelch

Dr John McAlaney from the Department of Psychology has visited Qatar University to present research that he and his colleague Dr Raian Ali of the Department of Computing have been conducting on the psychological and socio-technical aspects of cybersecurity. Attendees at this multi-disciplinary event included researchers from the Open University, the Qatar National Research Fund and the British Council. Dr McAlaney also attended a reception organised by the British Embassy in Doha, where His Excellency the British Ambassador Mr Nicholas Hopton welcomed the attendees to Qatar and spoke about the importance of interdisciplinary research and the benefits of collaborative research between the UK and Qatar.











Dr McAlaney presenting to the delegates











Qatar University










Doha skyline

The nuts and bolts of peer review

Posted in Uncategorized by ssquelch

For many early career researchers, the trepidation in submitting a first review is hard to overcome. Jillian Hart shares her thoughts following a workshop run by Sense About Science aimed at uncovering the peer review process and tackling those anxieties. She reflects on the benefits for researchers, collectively and individually, in being part of a community of peer reviewers. In this age of consumerism and market-driven strategy, it is ultimately positive that such a system exists where people use their own time, unpaid, to critically review others’ work.

As academics (and humans), we embody critical thinking. We question, debate, discuss and challenge. As an early career researcher (ECR) sometimes I feel as though I question everything, including myself. What do I have to contribute? Who would listen to me? Who would want my opinion? Peer review likely isn’t daunting to the academic veteran. But for PhD students, early career researchers and other novice academics, submitting your first peer review can be terrifying. Commenting, giving advice, suggesting changes, and questioning. Re-thinking, over-thinking, spending days going over your own comments! For the ECR anything new is daunting.

Peer review, in my opinion, is particularly nerve-racking as you’re dealing with someone else’s work. You could be commenting and giving suggestions to someone who has more academic experience in the bottom drawer of their desk than you have gained in your whole career so far. Although early career peer reviewing can cause apprehension, we need to remember not to fall into the trap of thinking our comments aren’t as valuable and our review won’t count as much as those of other people. Everyone had to write a first review. No one was born having contributed hundreds of reviews and being instantaneously experienced.

At the peer review workshop run by Sense About Science – Peer Review: The Nuts & Bolts– the trepidation in submitting a first review was common. I attended the workshop to learn more about the peer review process in the hope that it would help me with some of my own peer review anxieties. While it certainly answered many of my questions, it also got me thinking about other aspects of peer review. I went away thinking about what benefits we, collectively and individually, can get by being part of the peer review process.There is already a lot of debate about peer review, the positives, the negatives, the alternatives and this blog is not to regurgitate this. But if peer review is unpaid, time-consuming and sometimes a little painful (mentally – I certainly hope not physically!) then it’s hardly surprising that some might think,”what’s the point?!”

The 2009 sense about science peer review survey found that 90% of those asked why they participated in peer review said they did so because they consider it as part of their role in the academic community. For an ECR it can mean gaining valuable experience as well as feeling acknowledged – someone has approached you and asked for your thoughts, and little things like this can make a big impact on our confidence and self-assurance. One of the more prickly questions is should we be getting paid for it? Do we want to be paid for it? This is a thorny topic and opinions are certainly divided. I like the idea of sticking to traditions. Doing it because we want to play our part, give something back.

Most things have a price these days (usually an expensive one). So I find it wonderful that in this age of consumerism, materialistic and money-orientated society that there remains a review system where people use their own time, unpaid, to critically review others’ papers. Regardless of whether people are doing it to gain experience, get noticed, or increase their chances of future papers being published, the fact remains that there is a thriving community of people willing to contribute and commit their time without the benefit of being paid. I think that’s something to be proud of. To be a part of that remarkable community, I think that’s ‘the point’ for many people.

Without the peer review workshop, I wouldn’t have really thought about the peer review process in much depth. The workshop provoked questions and ideas that I hadn’t thought about before – and likely wouldn’t ever have thought about. If you’re in the early stages of your research career and want to know more about the peer review process then Sense About Science peer review workshops are fantastic to learn, ask and exchange ideas with fellow peers. Click here for a guide to peer review.

Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts is a free half-day workshop for early career researchers and explores how peer review works, how to get involved, the challenges to the system, and the role of peer review in helping the public to evaluate research claims. Sense About Science will be organising two workshops again this year, one in London and one in Scotland. Keep an eye on the dates for the next peer review workshops by clicking here. Or click here to find out the dates for the current workshops on Standing up for Science media.

BRAD – Upcoming Opportunities

Posted in Training by apekalski

Financial Management Workshop Monday 13th April 2014, 13:30-14:30

This workshop will cover several topics ranging from; financial management, income and funding budgeting, financial resourcing and strategic financial planning.
This workshop will be facilitated by Gary Cowen, Research and Knowledge Exchange.

There are limited spaces so please do ensure you get one by booking on the Organisational Development webpages.

Ethics and Research Governance Monday 13th April 2014, 11:00-12:30

A 20 minute presentation on ethical considerations, policy, and principles. Followed by a Q & A session on your ethical issues or questions related to your research. This workshop will be facilitated by Eva Papadopoulou, Research and Knowledge Exchange

There are limited spaces so please do ensure you get one by booking on the Organisational Development webpages.


The Impact Awards for Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation (KEC) Professionals

The Impact Awards from RCUK and PraxisUnico reward and recognise knowledge exchange, technology transfer and commercialisation professionals who have excelled in enabling and facilitating the achievement of impact from the outcomes of research.

PraxisUnico and the Research Councils are working together to facilitate the sharing of best practice, and to acknowledge and celebrate the work that Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation (KEC) professionals do in enabling impact from UK research organisations.

The Impact Awards from RCUK and PraxisUnico reward and recognise knowledge exchange, technology transfer and commercialisation professionals who have excelled in enabling and facilitating the achievement of impact from the outcomes of research.

PraxisUnico and the Research Councils are working together to facilitate the sharing of best practice, and to acknowledge and celebrate the work that Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation (KEC) professionals do in enabling impact from UK research organisations.

The Impact Awards for KEC Professionals:

  • Recognises the important contribution made by KEC professionals working with researchers in turning excellent research into impact
  • Enables the sharing of best practice in KEC amongst the varied community served by the Research Councils and PraxisUnico
  • Stimulates innovative approaches to KEC activities in UK research organisations and beyond

The competition replaces the PraxisUnico Impact Awards and the BBSRC Activating Impact competition.


ResearchKit: Apple harnesses the power of iPhone for medical research

For those of you who have an interest in Medical Research, there has been a very exciting development made in the field by Apple.

ResearchKit is Apple’s opt-in program for users to share their HealthKit data with medical researchers hoping to tackle a wide array of diseases.

ResearchKit will be an open source effort that pulls data from multiple sources including the Apple Watch and iPhone. It officially launches next month, but the first five applications are available today for interested users.

Apple’s launch partners for ResearchKit represent some of the premier medical institutions today, places like Penn Medicine, Stanford Medicine, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation. For an example of one of the partnerships manifesting in the first five apps, Williams explained mPower. This allows anyone with an iPhone to contribute to Parkinson’s research by turning their device into a diagnostic tool. mPower includes a tapping test to evaluate hand tremors, a microphone “ahh” test to assess vocal chord variations, and a walk-test where the iPhone precisely measures a user’s gait. Other initial apps address medical initiatives such as breast cancer, asthma, and diabetes.

ResearchKit could offer scientists a sample size that was previously a rare occurrence. Apple CEO Tim Cook believes ResearchKit will change medical research in a way which is truly profound.

MRC removes PhD eligibility criteria for fellowships and launches career framework

Until now, the period within which someone could apply for an MRC fellowship has been different for different fellowships. The restrictions will be removed on 18 March, coincident with the launch of the career framework.

The MRC Interactive Career Framework was constructed following broad consultation with medical research groups and a review of medical research careers comprising interviews with nearly 400 non-clinical medical researchers, the MRC said. 

The interviews were conducted with MRC award winners, and focused on the ten to 20 years following their receipt of funding. One finding of the review was that 44 per cent of interviewees finished their PhD “with either no idea or only a general idea of what they wanted to do next”, the MRC said. In addition, 60 per cent said they had not received enough careers advice. 

The removal of the restriction on when researchers can apply for a fellowship was an outcome of the review. “Many of those who contributed to the review spoke of the lack of flexibility in making research career choices resulting from the fact that researchers have only a certain number of years after their PhD in which to apply for fellowships, after which point they’re ineligible,” the MRC said. 

The MRC is seeking feedback on the framework, which it says will be developed further with additional career routes, case studies and tools.

Nurse review of research councils: call for evidence

BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) have launched a formal consultation on reviewing the research councils.  The deadline for responses to BIS is 17th April 2015 and BU will be submitting an institutional response that reflects the views of the majority of staff.

To facilitate the production of the institutional response the Deans of Faculty have been invited to each submit a Faculty-based response taking into account the views of academic colleagues.  It is of paramount importance that academic and research staff engage with this consultation for two reasons:

  1. Evidence is required on the balance of the funding portfolio and so potentially affects disciplines differently.
  2. Evidence is required on integrating with agencies and organisations and so would affect Faculties differently.

The call for evidence focusses on four areas: strategic decision-making, collaborations and partnerships, balance of the funding portfolio, and effective ways of working.

The full consultation document  can be accessed here:

The consultation refers to the triennial review of the research councils which can be accessed here:

How to contribute

To contribute to the consultation please send your comments using this form (Faculty response-Nurse-review-of-research-councils-call-for-evidence-form) to your Faculty contact by 27th March as follows:

HSS – Prof Gail Thomas

Management - Prof Keith Wilkes

Media – Stephen Jukes

SciTech – Prof Richard Stillman


19th March         Launch consultation internally

27th March         All individual feedback to be sent to the Deans

1st April               Each Dean to send a Faculty response to Jo Garrad

9th April               Jo Garrad to send a draft institutional response to John Fletcher

14th April            All final feedback to be sent to Jo Garrad

16th April            Deadline for submitting final institutional response to BIS

MIDWIFERY: Top five most down-loaded articles for 2014

 Today academic publisher Elsevier sent round an email with the top five most downloaded articles from the international journal Midwifery.

We were pleased to see that the fifth paper on that list is a BU paper jointly written with Dr. Helen Bryers, Consultant Midwife in Scotland. 


Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen



Research Methods Workshops – April 2015

Posted in Training by apekalski

An introduction to the qualitative research approach of ethnography.

The session is on Wednesday 15th April 2015, 10:00-11:00 Talbot Campus and will be facilitated by Dr Lorraine Brown. There are limited spaces so please do ensure you get one by booking on the Organisational Development webpages.


 Qualitative Research
This session is an introductory overview of qualitative research, including its background and development, as well as the below:

- The nature and key features of this approach.
- The main differences to quantitative research, the types of research question which could be answered through it, and its main differences   from quantitative enquiry.
- Describe the sources of data, and how they are collected and analysed.

- Qualitative interviewing and participant observation will be included.

The session will involve presentation, discussion and opportunities for participants to share methodological problems.

The session is on Tuesday 14th April 2015, 13:00-16:00 Talbot Campus and will be facilitated by Prof. Immy Holloway. There are limited spaces so please do ensure you get one by booking on the Organisational Development webpages.


Mixed Methods
For this particular workshop, although a general introduction to Mixed Methods will be given, to gain maximum benefit, you need to be already thinking around the possibility / suitability of mixed methods for your research or be willing to explore that during the workshop

The session is on Tuesday 14th April 2015, 14:00-15:30 Talbot Campus and will be facilitated by Dr Carol Bond. There are limited spaces so please do ensure you get one by booking on the Organisational Development webpages.


The Principles of Grounded Theory.
This session will introduce the research approach of Grounded Theory. The development of grounded theory as a method and its key features will be explored within the session. The content will be particularly relevant to those who are new to the approach and it will be illustrated with experiences from research practice.

The session is on Friday 17th April 2015, 12:00-13:00 Talbot Campus and will be facilitated by Dr Liz Norton. There are limited spaces so please do ensure you get one by booking on the Organisational Development webpages.

EPSRC launches a science and engineering blog

A new science and engineering blog will provide debate and opinion pieces from leading thinkers on research, innovation and science funding policy.

The blog, launched by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), will seek contributions from scientists and engineers as well as EPSRC staff.

Announcing the launch, Professor Philip Nelson, Chief Executive of EPSRC says; ‘We want the EPSRC blog to host debate, share thinking and provide different perspectives on topics affecting the engineering and physical sciences community.  It is vital that as a community we remain engaged on developments and issues. I hope the EPSRC blog will prove an additional and very useful tool in doing just that.’

Within the first blog post Professor Nelson sets out EPSRC’s strategic plan and outlines discussions around how research is best supported, the university eco-system and opportunities to support innovation.

Dr Nick Hawes, from the University of Birmingham, argues why scientists working in robotics and artificial intelligence need to engage with the public. His blog post sets out tips for public engagement, gives examples of robot demonstrations and tweeting robots, with data to demonstrate the worldwide online impact.

AHRC call for Nominations to their Peer Review College

Posted in Research news by Jo Garrad

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) is seeking nominations for new members to be appointed to its Peer Review College (PRC). 

Peer review lies at the heart of the AHRC’s operations, and they are fully committed to the principle of peer review for the assessment of proposals to their schemes and programmes. PRC members provide expert quality reviews of proposals within their areas of expertise, which inform the AHRC’s decision making processes. As well as making an important contribution to the AHRC’s peer review processes, the experience gained by membership of the College will provide benefits to you, your department and to Bournemouth University.

Nominations are welcomed for either of the below Calls:

Call for Early Career Researchers (ECRs)

Eligibility – Nominations for all candidates who meet the eligibility for the PRC Academic group (ECR) and who meet the AHRC ECR criteria.  At the point of nomination to the college the nominee must be:

  • Within eight years of the award of their PhD or equivalent professional training or
  • Within six years  of their first academic appointment

Please be aware that current AHRC PRC members do not need to apply for this call. Former PRC members are only eligible to apply if their PRC membership ended before 16th April 2013.  For further information, read the ECR Call for Nominations advert (PDF 71KB, opens in a new window).

Call for membership of the Strategic and Technical reviewer groups

Eligibility – Nominations for all candidates, from any career stage, who meet the criteria for the Strategic or Technical groups of the AHRC PRC.  Current members are eligible to apply for this Call if they meet the criteria for one or either of these groups. Former PRC members are only eligible to apply if their PRC membership ended before 16th April 2013.  For further information, click here to view read the Strategic/Technical group Call for Nominations advert (PDF 85KB, opens in a new window).

The deadline for nominations to both Calls is 12 noon on 16th April 2015.

If successful, College members will be appointed for a term commencing 1 October 2015 and ending 31 December 2018.

If you have any queries regarding the nomination process please do not hesitate to contact:

Matthew Carr, AHRC Peer Review College Coordinator (Membership)

Email:; Tel: 01793 416069

Sport Management Researcher Top-Cited Author in Leading Journal

The latest ABS Journal Guide has lifted an article first-authored by Dr. Tim Breitbarth to be the single most-cited paper in the only 3* journal in the field of sport business.

Considering all major citation databases, Tim’s paper “The role of corporate social responsibility in the football business: Towards the development of a conceptual model” co-authored with Phil Harris in European Sport Management Quarterly (2008) is leaving the strongest footprint in the academic community.

Dr Tim Breitbarth from the Faculty of Management is a regular author, guest editor, project leader, track convener at international conferences as well as invited speaker on CSR in general and CSR in sport.


Full reference:

Breitbarth, T. & Harris, P. (2008): The role of corporate social responsibility in the football business: Towards the development of a conceptual model. European Sports Management Quarterly, 8(2): 179-206.



Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has attracted considerable interest in the management discipline, but has rarely been evaluated and explored in the sports management research arena. In evaluating the sports, management and marketing literature, this article considers the role of CSR in professional football. It argues that an increased awareness and integration of CSR into the football business fosters the competitiveness of the game and creates additional value for its stakeholders. The article proposes a conceptual model which outlines the agency role of football in order to create political, cultural, humanitarian and reassurance value. Empirical evidence supporting the model is applied based on case studies from four key countries that currently dominate the shaping of CSR discussion and are vital for the game itself: England, Germany, Japan and the US. The article’s aim is to encourage sports management to see CSR as an opportunity-driven concept, which can assist in achieving better strategic direction, and outlines areas where future research can improve sport management’s appreciation of this rapidly more important topic.


Subscribe to receive the Daily Digest email