Category / Research assessment

Open Access and the research lifecycle: a guide for researchers

Guidance, Post-award, Publishing, Research assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

With recent requirements imposed by major research funders, researchers are presented with both opportunities and challenges – opportunities to re-use and re-purpose published outputs and datasets, and challenges in making one’s own work legally and ethically available to others.

Last year, thirty Northampton researchers contributed to focus groups looking at open access publications and data, with a particular focus on compliance with funder requirements. From the outcome of the focus groups, University of Northampton developed an Open Access and the research lifecyle guidance, which has been adapted to fit in with BU’s institutional policies.   

This guide, which is part of a JISC-funded Open to Open Access project, is intended for researchers who wish to engage with the open access agenda, but aren’t entirely sure how best to achieve this. This short guide highlights some of the issues to consider at each stage of the research lifecycle and the tools that are available to support you.

Please click here –  Open Access and the research lifecyle guidance to access a printable version of the guidance. For further queries, please get in touch with Pengpeng Hatch (pphatch@bournemouth.ac.uk) at RKEO.

 

CEMP / CEL Research Bulletin April 2015

Funding opportunities, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment

 

               

 

The latest CEMP bulletin, now combined with the Centre for Excellence in Learning, is now available as a PDF  CEMP CEL bulletin April 15  or word doc  CEMP CEL bulletin April 15

The bulletin provides a ‘top 20’ of research funding opportunities related to education, learning and pedagogy research and grouped into the the three BU learning research sub-themes: Media and Digital Literacies, Practitioner Enquiry and (Higher) Education Dynamics.

To follow up any of these opportunities, please contact Julian or Richard in CEMP or Marcellus Mbah in CEL.

Impact of fatigue management research in Multiple Sclerosis – FACETS, IMSPIRE and beyond

Fusion, PG research, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, student research

Lunchtime Seminar with Peter Thomas, Wednesday 15th April 1-1.50pm, R303

Please come to listen to Professor Peter Thomas present on the impact that his research into fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis is having, noting the importance of research with strong potential for patient benefit, and the importance of the research funder.

Further information on this Seminar series can be found by clicking on the link below.

Impact Seminar dates 2015

There is no need to book – just turn up. Contact Zoe on zsheppard@bournemouth.ac.uk for more information.

We look forward to seeing you there.

REF update: HEFCE’s REFlections event, 25 March 2015

Research assessment

I went to HEFCE’s (rather cleverly named) REFlections event on Wednesday to hear about the review of REF 2014 and plans for the future of research assessment.

The key points were:

  • Collaboration and multi-/interdisciplinary research are likely to be important for the next REF
  • HEFCE have commissioned Elsevier to undertake a project on measuring multidisciplinary research to inform the next REF
  • The REF impact case studies database went live yesterday and is an excellent resource
  • Dual support system is likely to stay
  • Impact case studies are likely to stay, however, the impact template may change/become obsolete
  • Peer review will stay, informed by metrics in some disciplines (akin to REF 2014)
  • Metrics are not yet robust enough to have a metrics-driven REF. In particular, this is not yet possible for the assessment of outputs or impact. It is possible, however, to rely more heavily on metrics for the environment assessment and there could be changes to this part for the next REF.

 

HEFCE plan to consult with the sector on future plans for the REF this coming autumn.

 

Further information:

UNCLASSIFIED

Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment

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 openaccess@bournemouth.ac.uk with queries or attend one of our Open Access Workshops over the next few months.

Further information on HEFCEs policy can be found here

Working towards research impact in Nepal

Knowledge Transfer, Research assessment

BU’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health has a long history of working Nepal.  Last month (January 7th) BU’s partner Green Tara Nepal led the dissemination of the findings of our evaluation of key health promotion initiatives in Nepal. The evaluation was conducted in collaboration with the Government of Nepal, Green Tara Trust, a UK-based charity, several national and international non-governmental organisations and three UK universities, namely Liverpool John Moores University, Bournemouth University and the University of Sheffield. The evaluation identified key government, bilateral, UN agencies national and international non-governmental organisations working in health promotion in Nepal. Their health promotion activities and approaches were documented and gaps were identified.

As a follow up to both the evaluation and dissemination event we were asked by the journal Public Health Perspectives to write an editorial on our work.1  Our editorial ‘Health Promotion: A review of policies and practices in Nepal’ highlights the research we conducted and the state of health promotion we uncovered.  We also used our editorial to explain the UK notion of impact as formalised in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF).  To explain to our non-academic readers the REF is a nation-wide system to assess the quality academic research in all academic disciplines. 2-4  One key part of the REF is measuring the ‘impact’ that a UK university has on society and/or the economy.  This REF requires UK universities to write and submit a number of case studies that show societal impact.5   The dissemination of the health promotion research in Nepal is the beginning of a REF impact case study for Bournemouth University and our UK partner Liverpool John Moores University.  The editorial is a further stepping stone in the dissemination especially since it was co-authored between UK academics, health promotion practitioners as well as a member of the Constitutional Assembly (the Nepali equivalent of Parliament).   Working with policy-makers at an early stage increases the chances of our research being incorporated in national policy-making in Nepal.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1. Sharma, A, Tuladhar, G., Dhungel, A., Padmadharini, van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2015) Health Promotion: A review of policies and practices in Nepal, Public Health Perpective 5(2): http://phpnepal.org/index.php?listId=941#.VO4Qvn9tXkd
  2. Parker, J., van Teijlingen, E. (2012) The Research Excellence Framework (REF): Assessing the impact of Social Work research on society, Practice: Social Work in Action 24(1): 41-52.  http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/20511/2/REF%20paper%20JPEvT.pdf
  3. van Teijlingen, E., Ryan, K., Alexander, J., Marchant, S. (2011) The Research Excellence Framework (REF): new developments to assess research in higher education institutions and its impact on society. MIDIRS 21 (3): 298-301.
  4. Hartwell, H., van Teijlingen, E., Parker, J. (2013) Nutrition; Effects of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) Nutrition & Food Science 43 (1): 74-77.
  5. Research Councils UK (2015)  RCUK Review of Pathways to Impact: Summary http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/PtoIExecSummary.pdf

 

US Funding Opportunities – videos

Awarded & submitted bids, Funding opportunities, Research assessment, Training

For one month only (expiry: 6th March 2015), we have access to the following ARMA* videos:

ARMA Introduction to US Funding

In this video, Dr Stephen Conway, Senior Assistant Registrar at the University of Oxford, delivers an essential introduction to US funding. Dr Conway covers strategic priorities and the current drivers. He goes on to exemplify a case study from the University of Oxford. Outputs of the project are examined and conclusions are drawn.

ARMA – Applying for US Funding

Speakers: Patricia Hawk – Director of Sponsored Programs, Oregon State University and Vivian Holmes, Director of Sponsored Research Operations, The Broad institute of MIT and Harvard.

Patricia Hawk and Vivian Holmes deliver essential information to support US applications for funding. The process from the initial search, to proposal preparation and specifics such as allowances for salaries, equipment and travel are examined.

ARMA – Managing US Awards

Speakers: Patricia Hawk – Director of Sponsored Programs, Oregon State University and Vivian Holmes, Director of Sponsored Research Operations, The Broad institute of MIT and Harvard.

Patricia and Vivian deliver this essential guide to managing US awards which includes the types of grant, shared responsibilities, management of project costs, performance issues, project reporting, federal payment methods, close-out responsibilities, audit and VAT.

* Associate of Research Managers and Administrators

You can access a short trailer on the ARMA website and an excerpt, giving the top ten tips for US funding opportunities. The latter also discusses why a service such as RKEO is the essential partner in developing and managing your bid, regardless of the funder’s location.

To access these resources, please contact Charmain Lyons (mailto:clyons@bournemouth.ac.uk) and she will send you the code and joining instructions.

 

 

Leading Sociologist to Present Workshop on Achieving and Demonstrating Research Impact!

REF Subjects, Research assessment

Professor John Scott, a leading figure in British Sociology, is visiting the University to present a workshop on ‘Achieving and Demonstrating Research Impact’ 9am to midday on 26th March in S202, Studland House, Lansdowne Campus.  The workshop will consider both the achievement and demonstration of impact and will comprise three linked sessions:

 

  1. What is ‘impact’ and how can it be achieved?
  2. How can impact be demonstrated?
  3. The future of the REF

 

Hope you can make it as this will be of cross-University interest!

In metrics we trust?

Post-award, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Back in May HEFCE launched a Call for Evidence on the role of metrics in research assessment. The Independent review chaired by by Professor James Wilsdon,  University of Sussex and supported by an independent steering group, is tasked with building on the previous 2008/9 pilot exercise to explore the current use of metrics for research assessment, consider the robustness of metrics across different disciplines, and assess their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact.

HEFCE received 153 responses (44% from HEIs, 27% individuals, 18% learned societies, 7% providers, 2% mission groups, 2% other). With the majority – 57% – of those who responded expressed overall scepticism about the further introduction of metrics into research assessment.

As part of the review three stakeholder workshops have been held/scheduled on key areas of interest and debate:

To date, all have been well attended and very lively. I was able to attend the I workshop in Sussex with some 150 odd other delegates including members of the metrics review panel, metrics developers and providers, researchers, university managers, and a range of stakeholders from across the research and HE community.

The day contained many thoughtful contributions from a range of speakers including: Dr Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief, Nature; Professor Stephen Curry, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College; and Dr Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy, HEFCE. There was lively discussion about the value, potential role, and unintended consequences of metrics in research evaluation. If you are interested in the future role of metrics in research assessment, I would particularly recommend reviewing the presentations from David Colquhoun, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology at UCL and Dorothy Bishop, Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology, the University of Oxford.

For further insight you could also check out the Twitter discussion, which has over 1000 tweets tagged with #HEFCEmetrics, Impact story have also helpfully encapsulated much of the story/discussion via Storify.

The results of the review will be announced at the end of March and published in the summer. The report will make recommendation againsts three time horizons:

(1) What can HEIs do to improve research management now;

(2) Suggestions for the next REF;

(3) The longer term, including identification of programmes for further work.

The REF results are in! BU’s research recognised as world leading

REF Subjects, Research assessment

REF logoAfter many years of preparation, numerous mock exercises and thirteen long months of waiting, the REF results are finally published today! And the news for BU is excellent!

62% of BU’s research has been recognised as internationally excellent, with 18% rated as world-leading. This is a significant uplift on our RAE 2008 scores and has been achieved whilst also submitting considerably more staff to REF 2014 (161.8 FTE, an increase of 45.5%). This highlights the growing research volume and quality at BU and is testament to the significant investment that has been put into research over the past decade. The assessment recognised BU as a leading university in both the UK and south west region.

Key achievements for BU overall include:

  • BU was in the top half of all institutions that submitted to the REF (69th out of 154) based on the proportion of research rated of international standard
  • BU was 11th out of the 69 post-1992 universities based on the proportion of world-leading research
  • BU was fourth in the south west based on the proportion of world-leading research, behind Bristol, Bath and Exeter
  • 30% of BU’s research impact was rated world-leading
  • 58% of BU’s research outputs were rated internationally excellent or world-leading
  • 63% of BU’s research environment was rated internationally excellent or world-leading
  • The THE has ranked BU 69th overall, an increase from 75th in 2008, and 69th for impact – http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/ref-2014-results-table-of-excellence/2017590.article

Key achievements for our research areas include:

  • Tourism (UOA 26) was rated as joint-first in the UK (out of 51 institutions) based on its internationally-recognised research
  • Art and design (UOA 34) is in the top quartile in the UK for its world-leading research, and is ranked first in the south west (out of 7 institutions)
  • Communication, Cultural and Media Studies (UOA 36) is in the top third of institutions in the UK (17th out of 67) for its world-leading research, and 7th in the UK for its world-leading impact
  • Psychology’s (UOA 4) outputs scored particularly well with 73% rated as internationally excellent or world-leading, placing BU 27th out of 82 institutions in the UK
  • Research impact was rated highly in General Engineering (UOA 15) which scored 73% internationally excellent, placing it fourth out of 29 post-1992 institutions.
  • BU submitted considerably more staff to Allied Health Professional, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy (UOA 3) than in the last assessment exercise (9.2fte in 2008 and 21.4fte in 2014) and achieved a significant uplift in the proportion of its research that was rated internationally excellent and world-leading (40% to 54%).
  • Geography, Environmental Studies and Archaeology (UOA 17) is in the top quartile in the UK (joint-17th out of 74 institutions) based on the proportion of research rated of international standing, making it also 1st out of 20 post-1992 universities
  • Business and Management Studies (UOA 19) scored particularly well in terms of impact, resulting in it ranking 9th in the UK (out of 101 institutions) for its world-leading impact

HEFCE, on behalf of the four funding councils, publish the results of the REF today. You can browse the results here: www.ref.ac.uk.

Congratulations to all – this is a milestone achievement 🙂

HEFCE are looking for views on a potential international REF in future…

Research assessment

HEFCE has published a survey inviting views on an internationalised system of research assessment.

This survey forms part of a project exploring the benefits and challenges of expanding the UK’s research assessment system, the Research Excellence Framework (REF), on an international basis. At the broadest level, this means an extension of the assessment to incorporate submissions from universities overseas.

This follows an invitation earlier this year from the then Minister of State for Universities and Science, David Willetts, for HEFCE to provide an opinion on the feasibility of an international REF. The project belongs in a wider context of international interest in the exercise, on which HEFCE frequently provides information and advice to higher education policymakers and university senior management from overseas.

The THE ran a story about this in April 2014: HEFCE looks at overseas links for research excellence 

Responses are invited from any organisation or individual with an interest in higher education research or its assessment. The survey will be open until Wednesday 12 November 2014.

The survey only has four questions –

1. What do you think the key benefits would be of expanding the REF internationally?

2. What do you think the key challenges would be in expanding the REF internationally?

3. In view of the potential benefits and challenges overall, how supportive would you be of further work to explore the issues in more depth?

4. Have you got any further comments relating to internationalisation of REF?

To complete the survey visit: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/refinternationalisation

REF 2020 update

Research assessment

In approximately 7 weeks we will know the outcome of the REF 2014 exercise. It is hard to believe that it is almost a year since we submitted to the exercise and that the results are round the corner. Whilst the expert panels have been assessing the submissions this past year, HEFCE have been working hard to design and shape the post-2014 REF, currently being referred to as REF 2020. They are currently midway through a review of the role of metrics in research assessment to ascertain the extent to which metrics could be used in the assessment and management of research. They have commissioned RAND Europe to undertake an assessment of the impact element of REF 2014, part of which will include recommendations to the assessment of impact in future REF exercises. They are currently consulting on whether an international REF exercise, rather than a national one, is the way forward. And, arguably the most important announcement to date, they have confirmed their open access policy for the next REF which stipulates that in order to be eligible for submission to the next REF from April 2016 all journal papers and conference proceedings have to be made freely available in an institutional and/or subject repository at the time of acceptance. Outputs not made freely available in a repository at the time of acceptance after April 2016 will be exempt from inclusion.

The Research Blog’s REF pages have recently been updated and you can read more of what we know about REF 2020 here: http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/ref/

As soon as we know more we will post it on the Blog. Until then we wait with anticipation for the REF 2014 results!

Impact, outcome and research methods – HSC PhD student on LSE Impact Blog

PG research, Research assessment

With working at a university and the rise of the REF, you would have almost certainly come across the terms ‘impact’ and ‘outcomes’. Whilst there might be a great deal of similarity and overlap in the use of these terms, it is important to discuss the sometime subtle differences between ‘impact’ and ‘outcome’. What consequences might this have for the design of social research?

The health and social care literature uses these terms in a rather haphazard manner. The differences are rarely discussed and it can be suggested that many use the wrong terminology. In this blog post on the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, relating to the field of information and advice on welfare issues, I briefly discuss and propose that there are fundamental differences between what an impact refers to and what an outcome refers to. Furthermore, I suggest that these differences are significant and profound enough to align each to opposing research methodologies.

These thoughts relate to the key areas of my PhD project with Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) in London. EAC coordinates the FirstStop service which provides information and advice to older people (and other stakeholders) on housing and care issues. My research is focused on how older people use information and advice on housing and the wider impact that this has.

If anyone has an interest in this area, do get in touch!