Category / Guidance

How to design a completely uninformative title

Guidance, Publishing

On the LSE Impact of Social Science blog this week, was an interesting post by Patrick Dunleavy on choosing a better title for your article – ‘Why do academics choose useless titles for articles and chapters? Four steps to getting a better title’.

Dunleavy believes that an informative title for an article or chapter maximizes the likelihood that your audience correctly remembers enough about your arguments to re-discover what they are looking for and that without embedded cues, your work will sit undisturbed on other scholars’ PDF libraries, or languish unread among hundreds of millions of other documents on the Web. He illustrates his point by presenting examples of frequently used useless titles and advises on using a full narrative title, one that makes completely clear your argument, conclusions or findings.

Now that we’re in the assessment period for the next REF exercise (likely to be REF2020) we need to focus on personal publication strategies which Julie blogged about earlier this month in the post ‘Strategic approaches to getting your work published’. One of the key tips for writing and publishing a journal article is all about getting the title right. This post shares Dunleavy’s key messages and advice:

1. Consider Alternatives

Look seriously, critically and comparatively at a range of possible alternatives. Make a resolution not to be too vague, general, or convention-bound in choosing what words to use. Try and think things through from a reader’s point of view: How will this wording be interpreted by someone scanning on Google Scholar? What will attract them to click through to the abstract?

Generate a minimum of 10 possible titles and print them out on a sheet of paper for careful consideration. Compare these alternatives with each other and see if recombining words from different titles might work better. Type your possible titles as search terms into Google Scholar or subject-specific databases and see what existing work comes up. Is this the right company you want to keep?

2. Link-up the title and content

Look at whether your title words are picked up in the abstract of the the article or chapter, and in the internal sub-headings. It’s a good sign if the title, abstract and sub-headings all use consistent, linking, meshing or nesting concepts and vocabulary. It’s a very bad sign if the title words and concepts don’t recur at all in the abstract and sub-heads, especially if these other elements use different, rival or non-synonymous concepts or wording from the title.

3. A Full Narrative Title

Consider using a full narrative title, one that makes completely clear what your argument, conclusions or findings are. Narrative titles take practice to write well. And they rarely work at the level of whole-book or whole-report titles. But they are often very effective for articles and chapters. e.g.  ‘New Public Management is Dead — Long Live Digital Era Governance’ (full example in original post).

Or

4. Provide some narrative cues

If you reject a full narrative heading, this compromise solution is to at least provide some narrative cues in your title, some helpful hints or signs for readers about the conclusions you have reached or the line of argument you are making. If you have an empty box or an interrogative title already, then ask, how can I make this more informative? So: ‘For Mill, should giving women the vote precede or come after implementing ungendered education?’ does not quite tell us your answer. It hints at a potential difficulty, but it does not yet tell us how you think that Mill addressed it.

Good luck!

Introducing the Fast Track Status – application process now open!

Guidance

In an attempt to sharpen the response time of some of our knowledge exchange activities, a new process is to be introduced .  During the last 18 months feedback from academics engaged with BU’s knowledge exchange (KE) vehicles suggests that our RKE processes do not always provide the speed and flexibility to operate effectively within a commercial environment.  In light of this feedback and under the direction of Professor Bennett, the Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) has worked with academics to review the current processes and, in collaboration with Legal Services, have drafted a series of recommendations.  These measures should enable those with a proven track record for KE activity to have greater autonomy and empower them to negotiate and close deals with clients in a more flexible manner, thereby providing a more responsive service.

The new process, ‘Fast Track status’, allows for expedited procedures to operate (within selected KE units) thereby enabling them to operate in a more entrepreneurial manner.  Fast Track status will be provided by application to KE units that request such status and subject to central audit by both RKE Operations and Legal Services to ensure that the processes are operating within agreed BU policies and the KE strategies of Schools.

Please refer to the Fast Track Status policy document for greater detail of the Fast Track status and guidance on completing the application form.

All applications will require authorisation by the Dean of School/Faculty.  If an application is successful, this signed form will act as the APF for all bids/projects from the individual/unit that meet the criteria agreed for Fast Track Status (e.g. individual KE projects under £25k (exclusions apply)).  The application will seek confirmation that it aligns to the Schools KE strategy and this will need to be confirmed by the Dean.    Recognising that the processes are there for good reason it is not appropriate to change them for all KE work.  Instead it is recommended that special status be applied to certain individuals/units to allow them to operate under licence outside of some of these processes enabling a more entrepreneurial approach.  To clarify, this status isn’t something that would be available to everyone and would only be awarded on the basis of set criteria against with units apply for such status (see the policy document for more information).

The timeline for implementation is shown below for information:

Time estimate Description Dates
Week 1 Fast Track Status call opens: RKE Ops advertise application process and notify interested parties. 13/1/14
Week 3 Application deadline. 31/1/14
Week 4 Collation and preparation of applications: RKE Ops collate applications and, together with Legal Services and Finance, provide input on the track record of applicants and ensure that BU’s charitable status is not impinged by such work (i.e. to ensure that the public benefit is clear) before forwarding documentation on to the PVC. 3/2/14 – 13/2/14
Week 6 Review of applications: PVC reviews applications and approves/ rejects; RKE Ops notify applicants of results. 13/2/14 – 21/2/14
Week 7 Drafting of standard contractual documentation and daily rates: Legal Services meet with successful applicants to agree contractual documentation required for activity; RKE Ops create competitive daily rates for each successful applicant. 24/2/14 – 14/3/14
Week 10 Fast Track Status operational 17/3/14

The application process is now open.  Please note that the closing date is 31 January 2014 and late submissions will not be accepted.  Applications must be submitted by the Dean of School/Faculty to jgarrad@bournemouth.ac.uk.

If you have any queries then please contact Jo Garrad at jgarrad@bournemouth.ac.uk.

New Year’s Research Resolution #5 – contribute to the new research website

Guidance

Happy New Year to you all and welcome back to work!

Each day this week we’ll be posting a New Year’s Research Resolution to help you get back into the swing of things. Today’s resolution is to contribute to the new research website.

BU’s new research website was launched in beta (i.e. test version) in December and has a radically updated design, presenting our research around our eight society-focused Research Themes. In each section content is displayed by research news, research impact, public engagement and postgraduate research. It is also possible to view content by each REF Unit of Assessment and see details of our Research Centres.  You can access the new website here:  http://research.bournemouth.ac.uk.

One of the key reasons for the new research website is to ensure that our researchers are able to easily and frequently share their research online.  Everyone will be able to craft their own content and upload articles themselves.  The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (R&KEO) will perform a light-touch check to ensure the correct tags are added and new content will go live on the site within 1-2 working days.  The webpages are yours to add content to!

Contributing to the new website is easy!  Content is added via WordPress (the same as adding posts to the BU Research Blog) and can be done by clicking on this link (your logon will be your BU network logon): http://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/login.  We want you to add content about your research projects, the research collaborations you are involved with, the research your PhD students are undertaking, your public engagement and outreach activities, news about you, your research and your research centre, etc.

All BU staff automatically have access to add content using their network logon. Once you have logged in for the first time we can give you additional access to edit and contribute to relevant research centres as well. Email research@bournemouth.ac.uk to request additional admin rights.

If you would like training in how to add content to the new website then sessions are available.  There are some workshops taking place next week (you can book online here). Further sessions are currently being scheduled. Please contact Sally Gates for more information..

Adding content is quick and easy, and shows the external world how vibrant and exciting research is at BU!  And that’s why your New Year’s Research Resolution #5 is to add content to the new website!

Strategic approaches to getting your work published

Guidance, Publishing

I read an extremely good article this week on Strategic Approaches to Getting Published, written by Phil Ward (University of Kent) as well as a presentation by Frances Bell (University of Leicester) (Developing a Publication Strategy).  Now that we’re in the assessment period for the next REF exercise (likely to be REF 2020) we need to focus on personal publication strategies.  This post shares some of the key messages and advice on personal publication strategies:

Have a publication strategy and review it every year or two – Try to keep in mind the direction in which you want your research to develop, and what publications will help to build your profile.  Try not to be diverted from this!  Your strategy should include different media and channels.  It should include information on your goals (what will you publish in the next week, year, five years, etc), uncertainties and development needs, and resources available to you (e.g. a mentor, peer review of your paper prior to submission, access to funds for open access charges, etc).  You should regularly check progress against your goals.

Balanced publications portfolio – Try and develop a balanced publication portfolio. You don’t always need to be targeting top journals, and sometimes you need to balance several factors:

  • Audience: who do you want to appeal to? Should you be thinking beyond your narrow disciplinary boundaries, or focussing more intensively on it?
  • Impact: do you want the findings of your research to be felt outside of academia?
  • Career Progression: will the publication help in the development of a strong CV?
  • REF: will the publication be a strong, positive contribution to your discipline?
  • Timing: do you need to get something out quickly, or work longer on a discipline-changing piece of research?
  • Co-authorship: would co-authorship help or hinder your publication record?
  • Open Access: will be increasingly important for the REF, but is it worth considering to help with your citations and the impact of your research?

Choosing the right journals – the ‘right journal’ is often viewed as being one with a high impact factor however this is an archaic and somewhat controversial system, and is based on the average number of citations over a two-five year period.  The system is open to abuse, and varies widely between disciplines.  However, it is still seen as a rough and ready indicator of esteem.

The following video is by Karin Dumstrei, Senior Editor at EMBO Journal.  It is worth 3 minutes of your time to watch and listen to the tips she gives!

Her advice for writing a journal article is to always:

  • Choose a project that excites you;
  • Tell a good story;
  • Select the right journal;
  • Avoid the three ‘don’ts’, namely: dont’ overstate your case, ignore others, or hold back data;
  • Be responsible with your data – i.e. say what you see rather than what you want to see.

High impact journals tend to have broader audiences, so you need to:

  • avoid jargon;
  • concentrate on the message;
  • write shorter articles (e.g. Science articles are generally 3-4 pages);
  • avoid too much detail. Additional data can be provided in ‘supplementary material’.
A good covering letter is essential.  It should summarise why your article is right for the journal you’re targeting.  Take time to get this right. Keep it succinct, but explain the novelty and importance of your research, and why you are approaching that journal in particular.
There are seven key tips for writing and publishing a journal article:
  • Title: make it engaging but keep it short, and avoid technical terms.  Also avoid terms which might give the impression of limited reach and significance of your research, e.g. ‘a local case study’ or ‘a small investigation’;
  • Story: structure your article round a good, cohesive, logical ‘story’;
  • Step Change: emphasise what makes your research important. Talk about ‘step changes’ rather than ‘incremental progresssions’;
  • Conclusion and Evaluation: a strong, persuasive and critical conclusion is essential for giving your paper clout;
  • Cover Letter: ‘sell’ your article and particularly why it is right for the journal you are targeting;
  • Feedback: get as much critical evaluation as possible;
  • Rejection: never take no for an answer.  Rejection is an inevitable part of the process. Don’t be discouraged, but take on board comments and criticism and keep trying be resubmitting.

Consider the role of social media in your publication strategy – social media has been shown to dramatically increase the academic and societal impact of research (see my previous posts on the benefits of using Twitter).  Social networking platforms such as Twitter are excellent for promoting and sharing your research, as are blogs either by writing your own blog, contributing posts to other blogs, or commenting on posts written by others.  Your publications strategy should include social media outlets.  For advice on using social media as part of your publication strategy please contact Sally Gates in the R&KEO.

Good luck!

New Year’s Research Resolution #3 – update your staff profile page

Guidance

Happy New Year to you all and welcome back to work!

Each day this week we’ll be posting a New Year’s Research Resolution to help you get back into the swing of things. Today’s resolution is to update your staff profile page.

Our new staff profile pages went live last October and provide an excellent opportunity to promote yourself both internally and externally.  Jo’s post demonstrates that the pages are attracting thousands of views from all over the world.

The easiest way to navigate to your profile is to open the application (or click on the ‘academic profile’ link from the intranet home page).  Next, click on ‘People’ in the page header and then on the start letter of your surname.  Finally, click on your name.  Your profile will then appear.  You can also search for your name.

You can update your profile page via BRIAN and fields you can add include:

  • photo of yourself
  • biography
  • research interests and keywords
  • teaching profile
  • PhD students supervised
  • invites lectures
  • qualifications
  • memberships
  • honours / awards
  • RKE grants
  • outreach and public engagement activities
Your publications will automatically be pulled through from BRIAN.

Having a complete and professional staff profile page can help to attract potential students and collaborators.  It will raise your profile externally and will ensure your page appears in web searches.

If you have any queries about BRIAN or the Staff Profile Pages then please direct these to BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk

The 5 ‘Golden Rules’ for e-submission of bid applications

Funding opportunities, Guidance, R & KE Operations

For all standard RCUK bids (for example AHRC, ESRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC, etc), the requirement is for the completed application to be submitted on J-es (J-es is the Research Councils’ web-based Joint Electronic Submission system for grant applications and award administration) by the Principal Investigator at least 5 working days before the application deadline.

The flowchart below illustrates the basic steps involved in the  ‘behind-the-scenes’ administration of  J-es bid applications before they are finally submitted to the councils.

As demonstrated in the flowchart, bid applications submitted through J-es are not exactly straightforward and quite often can be time-consuming and frustrating in some cases. Even when a bid application is ‘perfect’ in the eyes of the J-es checkers and institutional approvers, the process will still take up at least two working days, depending on the length of the application, and the availability of both J-es checkers and institutional approvers. Therefore, the 5-working-day turnaround will allow just enough time for potential changes and alterations to be made to the applications in order to maximise chances of success.  

When asked about the most common factors which delay the submission of a bid to J-es, institutional approvers and J-es checkers have collectively identified the following:

EligibilityThe eligibility of the PI is the first thing which you need to check, before embarking on the roller coaster ride of a bid application. The variety of funding bids from numerous research councils available out there means that each bid will come with a different guidance note. Even within the same research councils, guidance can sometimes differ between two separate funding opportunities.

Start date and duration of projectThe start date and the duration of the project should be planned in accordance with the funding guidance. For example, most of the times, funding councils require a minimum of 24 weeks between the bid submission date and the project start date but this can be different for each council. When there is a last minute change on J-es for the project start date or duration, this often involves a lengthy process as all previous costing figures provided for the project would have changed too.

AttachmentsAlthough providing a comprehensive CV or showing proof of all previous track records can be beneficial to your application, it is important to bear in mind that this is not always required. RKEO cannot stress enough times, the importance of reading the guidance and only attaching the required documents.  We have had applications returned to us due to attachments that were not specifically required and this will inevitably have an impact on the success of the application. 

Letter of supportThis is a major contributing factor to the delays in bid submission as quite often, letters of support come from external organisations or people and can take time to come back if there is missing or incorrect information that needs to be changed. And quite often, the most important and yet common missing information on a letter of support can be as simple as the date or signature.

 

FormatThe formatting on bid application documents is a constant bugbear for J-es checkers and institutional approvers. In the attempt to squeeze in as many words as possible onto the application document, the minimum margins, font size and page limit as stipulated by the council is quite often overlooked by PIs and this can cause unnecessary delays in the submission of the bid application.

These are just a few examples of cases which can cause unnecessary delay and angst in the process of submitting a bid application. Although they may seem obvious, knowing these factors may end up saving you time in the long run!

If you are interested in applying for a funding bid and would like to speak to one of us, do get in touch with us at the Research and Knowledge Exchange Office at 01202 961200.

Fifteen top tips for getting research funding

Funding opportunities, Guidance

How can you increase your chances of being successful when applying for research funding? Here are a few ideas from an AHRC panel member (with thanks to AHRC and the panel member):

  1. Ensure the scheme and applicant are a good match. Funders won’t give millions of pounds to new researchers.
  2. Does the team include an appropriate mix of people? Someone should be able to cover all of the disciplines represented in the proposal, and individuals at a range of career stages should be included.
  3. Remember that the assessors will be both subject specialists (the reviewers) and generalists (panel members). The panel can be targeted through the lay summary.
  4. Use the subject area to define the research expertise of your reviewers. Stating that your research is in the field of philosophy when this is peripheral to the study may mean your reviewers are unfamiliar with your subject.
  5. Imagine your nightmare critic and pre-empt their criticisms; respond to these without being defensive, but without glossing over any problems.
  6. Make the link to the funder’s remit clear. If the panel need to discuss whether or not the project is within the funder’s remit, the project is unlikely to be funded.
  7. Allow time to prepare and write the application. Two months to prepare, and a full week to write the application is to be expected, and then costing, gaining internal approvals etc still need to follow. Successful applications may be useful as a model, but slavishly following them may not succeed as the funder’s objectives may have changed.
  8. The application should cohere as a whole, but not be too repetitive. Stick to the first or third person, ensure it is clear who is meant when you say ‘I’ and make sure your spelling and grammar are correct. If the funder offers guidance on headings for specific sections, use them.
  9. If the funder requires an impact statement, be modest and realistic, set specific goals and milestones and don’t over-inflate your claims.
  10. If your research involves human participants, there will be ethical considerations. If the project involves a collaboration, make it clear who will take the lead for ethical approvals and ongoing ethical considerations.
  11. It’s all in the detail: name which conferences at which you hope to present your work and the journals in which you plan to publish. Explain how the publications differ, and detail which team members will work on each.
  12. When working out the costs, don’t skimp on hours. If you have fractional research assistants, explain why. If you are planning to publish a manuscript, allow time for revision. Don’t make the project cheap just for the sake of it, but make sure it is well considered and achievable within the resources. The reach and significance of the project are more important than the overall budget.
  13. Detail monitoring arrangements for the project: who will monitor progress, within what institutional structures, will there be management or advisory boards and what is the reporting structure? For early career researchers, what monitoring, career development and mentoring will be in place?
  14. Use internal peer review services (at BU, RPRS is available for all research applications) and talk to panellists or peer reviewers for your funder. Some people at BU may have relevant expertise you can tap into – get in touch with RKEO and we may be able to offer some names.
  15. Use your right to reply where funders allow. A critical review is not the end of your funding hopes, and a PI response can be used to elaborate on thoughts you didn’t have space for in the original application. Don’t be aggressive or defensive; it may be worth asking a colleague to read through your response to remove any emotional involvement. Also don’t repeat the positive comments; the panel will see these when they consider the application, and you can better use the space responding to misunderstandings or requests for further detail.

SHERPA/FACT – Funders and Author’s Open Access Compliance Tool

Guidance, Publishing

Use the new SHERPA/FACT tool to help you check if a journal’s open access policies complies with the requirements of the open access policies of the research funders that comprise Research Councils UK (RCUK) and the Wellcome Trust. The data on journal policies is drawn from SHERPA/RoMEO and the funders’ policies from SHERPA/JULIET.

The more established SHERPA Romeo website provides details of publisher copyright and archiving policies.  This tool will help you establish whether you can deposit your open access research papers in BURO (BU’s institutional repository), via BRIAN for free.  Contact the BURO Editorial Team or your Library Subject Team for more help and advice around making your research open access in BURO.

 

What’s the importance of RKE Ops?

Guidance, R & KE Operations

 The Research and Knowledge Exchange Operations (RKE Ops) team are here to help academics apply for external funding.  There are so many funders out there with so many different guidelines that it’s not always easy to find out how, who and what you should be applying to.

Costings of all proposals (including those that we are not the lead on) need to be undertaken by RKE Ops before proposals reach the submission stage.  Costings are undertaken by RKE Ops to ensure that a) they are complete and include full costs, b) that they include indirect and estates costs at current BU rates and c) that they include inflation at the BU rate.  Proposals need to be added to RED in order to track our bidding activity, which is in turn reported on and used for KPI’s, HEBCI and HESA returns; and RED generates the APF (Activity Proposal Form explained below).  The costs need to be added to our costings system, pFACT, for accurate costings and audit purposes. 

In addition to this, Legal Services need to check whether we are agreeing to any terms and conditions in advance of submitting the bid – and, if so, what these are.  We also need to check for any potential financial issues in advance of submission that need to be noted (for example, the risk of exchange rate fluctuations).  The APF (Activity Proposal Form from RED detailing the costs and income) and CAF (Contract Agreement Form from Legal Services detailing any legal or financial risks) need to be signed by a BU authorised signatory before the bid can be submitted; this gives approval for submission. This approval ensures that the appropriate senior staff (DDRE/DoP/Dean/UET members/Board members) are aware of the risks and commitments which arise from us undertaking the project, assuming it were to be awarded.  Some proposals will also have to go through the Quality Approval process, which is processed by RKE Operations.

The RKE Operations team will need to go through all of the above processes before the approval process can be completed.  In addition, an intention to bid form needs to be completed at the beginning to establish what processes an application may need to go through and the timescales required.  If you are intending to bid then please contact the Support Officer for your School to obtain a form (they have been tailored for each School).

The purpose of having a centralised group is that we connect all the necessary processes for academics (Finance, Legal, School signatories) and we’re there to help ensure that the application has the best possible chance of being funded.  If academics are successful then they will receive a contract and that contract has to go through certain processes in order to obtain the money and ensure it goes to the correct place.  Most importantly, if this information is never recorded on RED then it has a knock on effect on several things.  BU receives additional money from HEFCE based on the funding that we have received throughout the year.  Small pots of money add up to large sums and if these are never recorded then we lose out on additional funds from HEFCE.  Also, there are KPI’s with targets for R&KE funding to be obtained by academics in each of the Schools.  By not recording funding this will have a detrimental effect on the Schools targets for meeting the KPI’s.

If you’d like more information on RKEO as a whole then please see this helpful leaflet: R&KEO Leaflet

The number two FAQ for BRIAN is ‘where did my grants go’?

Guidance

To follow on from yesterday’s topic, the second FAQ that we are asked for BRIAN is ‘where did my grants go’?

When you have added grants to BRIAN and you want to view them, click on ‘Grants’ from your home page.  If you are presented with the following screen:

This is either because you have not entered any grant data or it may be due to the filters at the bottom of your page.  If you scroll down the page, you will see the following filters:

You need to select either Primary or Secondary Investigator to view your grants.  Unfortunately, there isn’t a ‘view all’ option at present.  I’m reliably informed by Symplectic that this will be available in the next version.

I hope this helps.  If you have any queries, please contact us at BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk.  We’re here to help.

 

The number one FAQ for BRIAN is ‘I can’t see _____’. Find out the answer below

Guidance

 

A couple of months ago we upgraded BRIAN to a new version, which should be more easy to navigate through.  However, in making it super whizzy and giving you different ways to view your data, it’s not always easy to see the obvious.  So, the number one question we get asked is ‘I can’t see where to enter x’.  The main thing being grants and professional activities.

The reason for this is because there are new tabs at the top, which show different data.

It would seem logical that all your data is under ‘my profile’ but it isn’t.   ‘My Profile’ is just a summary page of what you have previously entered under publications and grants.  In order to enter data against your BRIAN account, you need to ensure that you are on the home page, which is symbolised by a picture of a house.  The home page will enable you to enter publications, grants and professional activities.

 

I hope this helps.  If you have any queries, please contact us at BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk.  We’re here to help.

Staff Profile Pages to be updated

Guidance

The staff profile pages are being updated to tweak a few things such as changes to research themes, viewing and scrolling on mobile devices, ensuring photos don’t overlap with index, adding a few icons, to name but a few. 

This will take place from 4pm on Tuesday (22nd) until 8.15am on Wednesday.  It will mean that any content put into BRIAN will not update overnight.  The ‘refresh now’ button on the profile pages will also be disabled at this time.  The profile pages will be refreshed after 8am on Wednesday with any content that you’ve added to BRIAN.

There is still an outstanding issue with some links to BURO not working but this will be resolved in due course.

Thanks for your patience.

Have you been involved with an event designed for the external community?

Guidance, Research assessment

Then we want to hear from you! 🙂

The University is currently compiling the data for the annual Higher Education – Business & Community Interaction survey (HE-BCI) due to be submitted to HESA in early December.

We are asked to submit details of social, cultural and community events designed for the external community (to include both free and chargeable events) which took place between 1 August 2012 and 31 July 2013.

Event types that should be returned include, but are not limited to:

  • public lectures
  • performance arts (dance, drama, music, etc)
  • exhibitions
  • museum education
  • events for schools and community groups
  • business breakfasts

We cannot return events such as open days, Student Union activity, commercial conferences, etc.

All events that we ran as part of the Festival of Learning in June 2013 are likely to be eligible for inclusion and we will collate this information on your behalf centrally.

If you have been involved with an event which could be returned (other than those run for the Festival of Learning), please could you let your contact (see below) know the event name and date, whether it was free or chargeable, the estimated number of attendees, and an estimate of how much academic time was spent preparing for (but not delivering) the event:

  • ApSci – Eva Ashford
  • BS – Julia Woodwock
  • DEC – Norman Stock
  • HSC – Andy Scott
  • MS – Avril Harrison
  • ST – Rob Hydon
  • Professional Service – please contact Julie Northam in the R&KEO

The data returned is used by HEFCE to allocate the HEIF funding so it is important that we return as accurate a picture as possible.

New staff profile pages launched

Guidance

We are pleased to announce that the new staff profile pages were deployed yesterday (Thursday). 

The profile pages have a fresh, professional appearance.

  

If you have a BRIAN profile and access to an external page, please have a look at your profile.

The easiest way to navigate to your profile is to open the application (or click on the ‘academic profile’ link from the intranet home page).  Next, click on ‘People’ in the page header and then on the start letter of your surname.  Finally, click on your name.  Your profile will then appear.  You can also search for your name. 

If you have any feedback on the new staff profile pages, please email us at BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk

New staff profile pages will be released tomorrow

Guidance

BRIANThe new staff profile page application is being transitioned into live operation during the morning tomorrow.  The new pages should be accessible by noon.

There is nothing BRIAN users need to do.  However, the staff profile pages draw most of their information from BRIAN so ensuring your BRIAN profile is up to date and you have populated the new fields, eg the research field, would be good preparation to ensure your new profile page looks great.

One area of the new profile pages that is still being worked on is the link to documents in BURO.  Documents that are available in BURO can still be accessed from the staff profile pages.  Our work is to remove the link to those documents that are no longer available in BURO.  This work should be complete next week and will mean that BURO document links will only be displayed for accessible files.

Please have a look at the new pages once they are live and let us know what you think by emailing BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk.

10 features of the new Staff Profile Pages you need to know

Guidance

BRIANHere are the top 10 features of the new Staff Profile Pages (SPP) application that is to be released this week.

1.  Improved header information.  The header contains information on your title, job title and contact details.  This is always present at the top of every page.  Icons are also displayed to indicate the research themes to which you are linked and the keywords selected.  Social media and website links are also displayed.

2.  Improved searching.  Previously the search facility was quite poor.  Now, it is possible to search for partial matches for people’s name and publications.  In addition, SPP will prompt with ‘Did you mean?’ suggestions.  This is very useful where users are searching for staff but don’t quite enter the name correctly.

3.  Displaying favourites.  Within BRIAN you can highlight a publication (or grant) as a favourite.  This is achieved by clicking on the heart icon next to the item.  We suggest staff select a maximum of five favourites.  These items then appear on the home page of the SPP in chronological order.

4.  Displaying your current research activity.  We have just introduced to BRIAN the ability to record your current research activity.  If completed in BRIAN, this is displayed on the home page of SPP.  Having this information makes you profile feel contemporary and up to date so we encourage your to complete this area within the Professional Activities area of BRIAN.

5.  Immediate profile refresh.  The frustration that changes in BRIAN cannot be viewed in the profile page until the next day has been removed by the ability to refresh a page immediately in SPP.  There is a small area at the base of the SPP pages which tells you when the page was last refreshed and, by clicking on the icon, allows you to refresh the page.  This means that any changes you make in BRIAN are immediately visible so that you can see how the change looks.

6.  Browse by research theme or keyword.  You can click on a research theme or keyword and see all the people who have that association.  To make this feature useful, please ensure your RTs and keywords are up to date.

7.  Existing links to your page continue to work.  While the application has changed, people who have bookmarked the URL for your profle can lick on this old link to access your new profile.

8.  Two-way link with PhD students.  The method of linking to PhD students is much improved with the ability to hyperlink from a supervisor to the student and from the student back to the supervisor(s).  To achieve this, it is necessary to enter the student’s username when adding a PhD student to BRIAN.

9.  Improved scrolling.  Where there are many publications to display, the header is always visible on the screen so that the user knows which section is being viewed.  It also allows the user to easily switch section without scrolling.  Also, at the bottom of the screen, there is a button that returns the user to the top of the screen.

10.  Publication format.  The format for publications conforms to the BU standard.

While these 10 features of SPP are great, some of them (items 1, 3, 4, 6 & 8 ) require you to enter the information into BRIAN.  To a large extent, the SPP pages will only be a good as the underlying information in BRIAN so please spare a few minutes to update your BRIAN profile, add a recent picture etc.