At the end of July the REF team released the draft panel working methods and criteria documentation (see our previous blog post for access to the documents).
We’ve spent the week wading through the four main panel documents and have produced a very brief overview of the subtleties between the panels on key criteria (such as the use of citation data, co-authored outputs, additional environment data, etc) in a tabular format.
You can access the overview table here: REF – draft panel criteria comparison table
Unfortunately this is no substitute for reading the actual documentation (sorry!) but does highlight the key points and differences between panels.
These documents are currently open to sector-wide consultation until 5 October 2011. BU will be submitting a single institutional response coordinated by the Research Development Unit. BU staff are invited to submit feedback for consideration as part of this response. Please email all comments to Anita Somner by 20 September 2011.
Upcoming opportunities for PGRs – collaborate externally
BU involved in new MRF dissemination grant
New COVID-19 publication
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2024
Horizon Europe News – December 2023
A comment on the Social Science panel C. I notice that citations will be included but not journal impact factors. This is a problem as for UOA 19 the ABS is used to a very large extent. but many staff publish outside ABS in high impact factor journals. However, according to colleagues in other institutions, ABS is seriously flawed – journals jump about in the rankings and the list is very uneven in terms of quality between subject areas. for example, 4* in economics is very high quality and 4* in other areas is very soft. This has brought ABS into disrepute.