Category / Research assessment

Publish empirical or experimental data early whilst letting theory mature?

BU research, PG research, Publishing, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Training

My colleagues and I have written several papers to help budding researchers about the process of writing and publishing academic papers (Hundley, & van Teijlingen 2002; van Teijlingen 2004; Pitchforth et al. 2005; van Teijlingen et al. 2012; Simkhada et al. 2013). For all researchers – students and staff alike publishing research findings is important as new insights will add to the existing knowledge base, advance the academic discipline and, in the case of applied research, perhaps improve something in the lives of others such as, well-being, the economy or the environment. Apart from this general/altruistic drive to add to knowledge, the advice academics give our postgraduate students is: to get your study published as soon as possible. The two main reasons for publishing early are: (a) getting into print to potentially help your careers; and (b) staking once claim as an authority in the field and/or publishing your findings before someone else does.
As always there are exceptions to the rule. As academics we agree that trying to get into print early is a good personal strategy for an early researcher or a postgraduate student especially for those working with empirical or experimental data. However, occasionally it is better to wait and give the underlying idea in the paper time to develop and mature. The kind of paper that often improves with time is one based on theory. Let me share a personal example: a theoretical paper from my PhD (awarded by the University of Aberdeen in 1994). This paper started life as a theory chapter in my PhD thesis (van Teijlingen 1994). This chapter on models of maternity care was not the strongest part of my thesis and it took me another decade of fine-tuning to get it into a state worth publishing. The paper ‘A Critical Analysis of the Medical Model as used in the Study of Pregnancy and Childbirth’ was finally published in Sociological Research Online, the original online-only Sociology journal in the world (van Teijlingen 2005). The wait was worthwhile as the paper is today (May 2013), eight year after publication, the seventh ‘most viewed articles during the past eight weeks’ in the journal (see: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/stats/top20.html).
In conclusion, it is generally sound advice to new researchers and postgraduate students to publish early. Occasionally though, waiting and giving your paper time to improve through discussion with colleagues, presenting the ideas at conferences and on blogs may lead to a better final product.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health
School of Health & Social Care

References
Hundley, V., van Teijlingen E. (2002) How to decide where to send an article for publication? Nursing Standard 16(36): 21.
van Teijlingen (1994) A social or medical comparison of childbirth? : comparing the arguments in Grampian (Scotland) and the Netherlands (PhD thesis), Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen. Available online in the British Library (search for: uk.bl.ethos.387237 ).
Teijlingen van, E. (2004) Why I can’t get any academic writing done, Medical Sociology News 30 (3): 62-6.
van Teijlingen, E. (2005) A Critical Analysis of the Medical Model as used in the Study of Pregnancy and Childbirth, Sociological Research Online 10(2) Freely available online at: www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/teijlingen.html.
Pitchforth, E., Porter, M., Teijlingen van, E.R., Forrest Keenan, K. (2005) Writing up and presenting qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31 (2): 132-135.
Teijlingen van, E., Simkhada. P.P., Simkhada, B., Ireland, J. (2012) The long and winding road to publication, Nepal Journal Epidemiology 2(4): 213-215. http://nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/7093
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2013) Writing an academic paper for publication, Health Renaissance 11 (1): 1-5. www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Pp_1_5_Guest_Editorial.pdf

BU REF2014 Open Forum

Research assessment

In June, after the REF Academic Steering Group have met, there will be a series of BU REF2014 Open Forums. These forums will provide the opportunity for REF eligible staff to find out more about the provisional thresholds for the BU REF2014 staff selection process and to ask relevant questions about them.

Please find details of the events below:

Talbot Campus

Date : 10 June 2013

Time : 10am to 11am

Venue : Coyne Lecture Theatre, the Thomas Hardy Suite, Poole House

Lansdowne Campus

Date : 13 June 2013

Time : 9am to 10am

Venue : EB306, the Executive Business Centre

You can attend either one of the forums and there is no need to pre-register for these events.

Please feel free to get in touch with me (pengpeng.ooi@bournemouth.ac.uk) or Julie Northam (jnortham@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you wish to find out more.

 

My experience of the BU peer review scheme for research bids

Awarded & submitted bids, BU research, Grants Academy, R & KE Operations, Research assessment, Research news

My experience of the BU peer review scheme for research bids – Dan Jackson

Constructing a credible research bid is not an easy process. Anyone who has experienced this will attest to the headaches, confidence crises, as well as the very practical obstacles of application forms that include boxes that defy common sense! Building an internal deadline and peer review process into this might seem like another unnecessary headache.

Our experience of putting a Higher Education Academy (HEA) collaborative teaching grant included all of the above. As a relatively inexperienced grant consortium, we requested internal peer review, and found it to be an invaluable process. We submitted a draft version of the whole bid document to the reviewers and got very useful feedback from two colleagues who were familiar with the funding body. Not only that, we continued the dialogue with the internal reviewers over the next few weeks leading up to the grant deadline.

This is what I would recommend to anyone undertaking the internal peer review process:

  • Build it into your bid deadline from an early stage.
  • Give them as much of the bid document to comment on as possible. The more feedback the better.
  •  Choose your peer reviewers carefully – RKEO can help here – you ideally want people with experience of the particular funding body so as to give you the inside line.
  • If necessary, continue the dialogue with the reviewers after you receive the feedback.

Who can I ask for further help?

  • Caroline O’Kane in the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development team manages the RPRS and will answer any questions you have.

 

 

BU REF Individual Staff Circumstances Disclosure

Research assessment

Back in Autumn 2012, the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development and Operations Team(RKEDO) conducted the first round of the BU REF Individual Staff Circumstances data collection (please see link for more information) on a large scale, with a submission deadline of the 31 October 2012. Since then, data collection has been on-going and all new and existing REF eligible staff have been actively encouraged to disclose relevant individual circumstances.

The BU REF Circumstances Board first met last December to consider the following categories:

1. Early Career Researchers – 38 applicants

2. Maternity, paternity or adoption – 7 applicants

3. Part-time and/or career break – 3 applicants

4. More than two circumstances – 7 applicants

5. Complex circumstances – 3 applicants

There were also 11 applicants where staff had wanted their individual circumstances known but were not seeking a reduction in outputs.

The BU REF Circumstances Board will  meet again in Spring/Summer 2013 to consider any new cases or existing cases with changed circumstances.

How is this relevant to you?

If you are planning on submitting to the REF2014 assessment, there is a possibility that you might be eligible for a reduction of outputs, depending on your individual circumstances (please see link for more information).

What action do I need to take?

To find out if you are eligible for REF submission, please see section 3.1 of the BU REF 2014 Code of Practice and ‘Staff eligibility’ in the BU REF FAQs. You are then encouraged to complete the disclosure form. If further information is required about any circumstances disclosed, you will be contacted by a member of the HR team involved in the REF. You should print out, sign and return your completed form marked ‘REF Confidential’ to Judith Wilson, HR Manager, M601, Melbury House, 1-3 Oxford Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8ES. Alternatively, you can also email your completed form to refcircumstances@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Further information

For more information on BU REF2014, please click on ‘ref’ on the right-hand tab, which will take you to all previous blog posts on all things REF.

Please feel free to get in touch with me or Rita Dugan (rdugan@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you wish to speak to someone about your REF eligibility. 

Latest BU REF Highlight Report now available

Research assessment

The latest BU REF Highlight Report (#14) is now available for BU staff to download. It covers the period from November 2012 to January 2013.

Features in this report include information about:

  • UOA merger decisions by RASG and new UOA leaderships;
  • BU REF Timetable
  • The REF2014 Module on BRIAN for the Spring 2013 mock exercise
  • Efforts and activities in progressing the environment narrative, impact template and impact case studies
  • Links to the latest official REF documents.

You can access your copy of the report from the following location on the I-drive (just copy and paste the following into Windows Explorer): I:\R&KEO\Public\RDU\REF\REF preparations\REF highlight reports.

REF2014 module on BRIAN

Research assessment

With the preparation for the BU REF Spring 2013 Full Mock Exercise in full swing, the deadline for nominating your Research Outputs on the REF2014 module on BRIAN is looming up.

In a previous blog post, we shared with you the official guidance document on making your NRO (nominated research output) selection. The REF2014 module is extremely straightforward and intuitive. The guidance note will provide you with a step-by-step instruction on nominating your research outputs.

If you find that the REF2014 module is missing from your BRIAN account, please get in touch with Peng Peng Ooi (pengpeng.ooi@bournemouth.ac.uk) or Rita Dugan (rdugan@bournemouth.ac.uk) and we’ll be able to help you.

REF??

Research assessment

A while back, we posted a really useful blog on the frequently asked questions about the Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) national assessment, in particular within the context of Bournemouth University (please click on ‘BU REF FAQs’ for the post).

Not much has changed since then except that preparations are now in full swing for the Spring 2013 Full Mock Exercise and all Nominated Research Outputs are to be selected via the REF2014 module on BRIAN before the 15th February deadline (an official guidance has been produced to help you with this).

If you are relatively new in the scene of REF or if you are looking for more information in a specific area of REF2014, another useful source of information would be the FAQs section on the official REF website. The areas relevant to most of you would be topics like

-Individual staff circumstances

-Research outputs

-Codes of practice on the selection of staff

etc…

For more information on BU REF2014, please click on ‘ref’ on the right-hand tab, which will take you to all previous blog posts on all things REF.

Please feel free to get in touch with me or Rita Dugan (rdugan@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you wish to speak to someone about your REF eligibility. 

REF – Early Career Researcher

Research assessment

The University is currently preparing to take part in the first Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment, which is a national exercise to assess the quality of research in UK higher education institutions.

As part of this preparation, all REF eligible staff have been encouraged to disclose individual circumstances to HR (please refer to previous ‘REF’ blogposts for more information).  The first round of data collection closed in October 2012 and the next round of data collection is due to take place in May 2013. 

To help you to decide if you qualify as an early career researcher, please find below the official definition given by the REF team, extracted from the ‘Assessment framework and guidance on submissions’ document.

Early career researchers are defined as members of staff who meet the criteria to be selected as Category A or Category C staff on the census date, and who started their careers as independent researchers on or after 1 August 2009. For the purposes of the REF, an individual is deemed to have started their career as an independent researcher from the point at which:

a. They held a contract of employment of 0.2 FTE or greater, which included a primary employment function of undertaking ‘research’ or ‘teaching and research’, with any HEI or other
organisation, whether in the UK or overseas, and
b. They undertook independent research, leading or acting as principal investigator or equivalent on a research grant or significant piece of research work. (A member of staff is not deemed to have undertaken independent research purely on the basis that they are named on one or more research outputs.)

For more information about the REF at BU, see the previous REF posts on the Blog by clicking on the ‘ref’ tag. You can also access additional information from the REF website.

Alternatively, you can contact myself or Rita Dugan in the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development and Operations Team or leave a comment below.

Preparation commences for the BU REF Final Mock in Spring 2013.

REF Subjects, Research assessment

blog.onlineclock.net

With almost a year to go before the submission deadline of 29 November 2013 for REF2014, lots of ‘behind the scene preparations’ is currently underway. This  includes the  launch of the BU REF Final Mock Exercise for Spring 2013. This follows on from our previous Summer 2012 mock exercise which primarily focused on outputs. This final mock REF exercise will be a complete dry run, giving a realistic and authentic feel for the actual REF2014 submission. This latest exercise will be the fifth and the final in a series of different preparation exercises that have been held at BU ahead of the REF2014 submission deadline.

As in the Summer 2012 mock exercise, this final mock will be open to all academic staff. However, unlike all previous mock exercises, BRIAN will play the centre role in this final mock. All outputs will be nominated by staff on BRIAN, to be submitted to external reviewers. An official guidance on making your nominated research output selection on BRIAN has been produced. If you are unable to access the guidance attached to this blog post, please talk to your UOA leaders who will be able to help you. Although the deadline for nomination is not until 15 February 2013, now would be a good time to start thinking about which outputs you’re likely to put forward, and to prepare justification statements where applicable. Although REF2014 requires a maximum of four outputs, we’re giving you the opportunity to get feedback from the reviewers on up to six outputs, so make the most of this chance to really shape your outputs submission.

If you need any more information about the REF, have a look at all the previous blog posts that we’ve included here, or visit the REF website. Alternatively, you can contact myself or Julie Northam in the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development and Operations Team, or leave a comment below.

Latest BU REF Highlight Report now available

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Uncategorized

The latest BU REF Highlight Report (#13) is now available for BU staff to download. It covers the period from August to October 2012.

Features in this report include information about:

  • The Review Panel Meeting cycle for the Summer Mock 2012 and the feedback from it;
  • The dissemination of the BU REF Code of Practice, the BU REF FAQs and BU staff circumstances disclosure form, which is also closely linked to the staff circumstances disclosure exercise with an initial deadline of the 31 October 2012
  • The development of BRIAN in line with testing the REF Submission Pilot System;
  • Links to the latest official REF documents.                                                                                                                                                                                      

You can access your copy of the report from the following location on the I-drive (just copy and paste the following into Windows Explorer): I:\R&KEO\Public\RDU\REF\REF preparations\REF highlight reports

399 days to go …What are you doing about REF2014?

REF Subjects, Research assessment

Yes, it is officially 399 days before the submission deadline of the 29 November 2013 for the REF2014 assessment.

If you are submitting to REF2014, what can you do between now and 23 November 2013 that can help boost your submission?

This useful article written by Dr. Andy Miah published in ‘The Guardian’ back in February might give you an idea of what your next step could be.

Ref2014: what should researchers be concentrating on?

Professor Andy Miah looks to the RAE2008 results for insights into where academics should be publishing – and wonders what the future looks like.

With Ref2014 deadlines approaching, where should researchers invest their time over the next year, if they are in need of one or two extra outputs before the cut off? Should you write for journals, edited books, or perhaps even attempt to complete that overdue monograph? More importantly, what should we be doing in the future? For many units of assessment, the results from RAE2008 show clear weightings in terms of what universities consider to be worth submitting in any given unit of assessment. So what should academics do in targeting their work for publication?

Much of this debate is subject specific. In RAE2008 the law submission showed little interest in edited books constituting less than 1% of the total submission and focusing much more on journal articles. Books are similarly ill considered for the life sciences, for which much of this debate is, for want of a better word, academic. In this case, authored books are mostly seen as textbooks, intended principally for student bodies to purchase, not for peers to read. The progress of science runs too quickly for an author to wait for their cutting edge contribution to come out in a book. Writing a textbook can have value, but not for the research assessment. All that matters are journals and the higher the impact factor, the better.

For the non-Stem subjects, there is much more variation. Impact factors are generally low – rarely getting over three – making comparisons across journals more difficult. As well, the submissions to RAE reflect ambiguity over which kinds of outlet matters most. In history, a whopping 29% of all submissions from RAE2008 were authored or co-authored books, while 34% where book chapters.

However, in sociology, only 17% were authored or co-authored books while 63% were journal articles. A similar tendency towards journal articles is apparent in education, while for media and communications 42% were journal articles and 27% were book chapters. This may also suggest that media subjects place more value on book chapters than sociologists.

It seems clear from all non-Stem subjects that edited books – as opposed to book chapters in edited books – are the biggest loser with only very few submitted. This will come as no surprise to many researchers, since it is generally the contents rather than the act of editing that is typically seen to have intellectual worth. However, this need not mean that edited books lack value, since they could be a very good way of contributing to the discipline, rather like being a journal editor. Yet, given the amount of time it takes to edit a book, some very careful thought is needed before entering into a contract.

The relative lack of book chapters in most of the non-Stem submissions also raises question about their perceived value. One reason for this may be the ambiguity over the peer review process that surrounds edited books. While a good publishing house and a strong editorial team may suggest integrity, their efforts will still stop short of a blind peer review process. Another problem with book chapters may be citations. Books are not entered into the same indices as journal articles, nor have the same kind of flexibility of journal articles. For instance, it is difficult for buyers to purchase just one chapter from a book, should they wish.

Yet, writing book chapters can be a great entry point for many early career researchers and for the advanced scholar, the appeal of the potential quick turn around may outweigh the frustration of sometimes tiresome peer review process of journals. After all, reviewing papers is another part of the economic black hole within HE, a volunteer labour force with little accountability.

Publishing in edited volumes generally involves a more flexible and supportive peer review process, while also more generous time scales. That said, many books can take forever to be published, so it might hinder progress to publish if the editors suddenly slack off. The worst I have encountered is six years from submission to publication. This is less likely to happen with journals, but some do have a remarkably long publication lead-time.

As for all our research, the importance of the contribution rather than its medium should matter most. There’s still a lot we don’t know about the relative quality profile of the output weightings. It also matters what one’s peers are doing, so identifying that peer community matters.

However, if seeking to advise scholars, then targeting journals rather than books may be smarter. On the other hand, writing one’s own book can be an important step towards establishing ones reputation beyond journal articles.

Of course, there is nothing like receiving a beautifully printed book that can sit on one’s shelf alongside its peers. Journal articles rarely offer the satisfaction of having completed something that also has an attractive, tactile quality. Some clever publishers are republishing collections of journal articles as edited volumes and this may be a very sensible way to go.

Personally, I would mourn the demise of the edited collection, but would certainly welcome the rise of the special journal edition that is republished as a paperback, especially if I can choose the cover. Whether there is a market for such publications remains to be seen, but new markets do seem to be emerging.

Just the other day, I searched my name in Amazon, just in case there was something I had published without my knowledge (it has happened). I noticed that there is a publisher – which will remain unnamed – creating new books drawing content from freely available content online, from such sources as Wikipedia. If this is the future of book publishing, I’m out!

Professor Andy Miah (@andymiah) directs the Creative Futures Research Centre at the University of the West of Scotland.

For a more details summary of the data described here, go here

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up for free to become a member of the Higher Education Network.

 

REF Updates

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Are you new to REF?

If you are completely new to REF, or even if you know about REF but would like to find out more, we can recommend the ‘REF2014: A brief guide for research users’ document as a general introduction to what REF is and what it means.

You can find the document here.

BU Staff Circumstance Disclosure Form – DEADLINE 31 October 2012

For all REF eligible staff, it is really important that you read the BU REF Code of Practice (please click on the ‘REF’ tab from the menu bar at the top to access the document) in order to fully understand the processes and procedures employed by BU in preparing for the REF2014 assessment. The BU Staff Circumstances Disclosure process is especially important to you if you are an Early Career Researcher, you work part-time, you have been on leave or on a career break. For more information on how this applies to you, and also all other related documents, please click on the ‘REF’ tab on the menu at the top of the page. If you are still unsure after reading all the relevant documents and have questions you would like to ask, please send an email to: refcircumstances@bournemouth.ac.uk

REF Frequently Asked Questions Updated

The FAQs section of the REF official website has recently been updated. You can click on this link to see them.

 

 

 

 

Are we born to yawn?

BU research, Featured, Featured academics, Fusion, R & KE Operations, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research Integritiy, Research news, Research themes

Yawning consistently poses a conundrum to neurologists and neuroscientists. Increasingly, evidence is found to link neurological disorders through the commonality of yawning episodes and contagious yawning. Despite discrete incidences (such as parakinesia brachialis oscitans) in brain stem ischaemic stroke patients, there is considerable debate over the reasons for yawning, with the mechanism of yawning still not fully understood. Cortisol is implicated in the stress response and fatigue; repetitive yawning may be the link between neurological disorders and with a strong correlation between yawning and a rise in cortisol levels. Evidence has now been found in support of the Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis that proposes cortisol levels are elevated during yawning [1]. Additional data is in press, and further research is planned with longitudinal consideration to neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis and stroke. Funding for such initiatives is currently being sought.

[1] Thompson, S.B.N., & Bishop, P., 2012. Born to yawn? Understanding yawning as a warning of the rise in cortisol levels: randomized trial. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 1(5), e4:1-9. Doi: i-www.jmr.org/2012/e4/

FREE – Vitae Research Staff Conference, 8 November 2012

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

This conference will focus on the role of research staff and research staff associations in leading and supporting sector change. The plenary will have an international emphasis to reflect progress in setting up the International Consortium of Research Staff Associations (ICoRSA).

Research staff associations represent the interests of research staff and their colleagues by interacting with institutional management and administration, informing institutional policy, and facilitating the organisation of training activities and career development session for other researchers.  Research staff associations can be crucial agents in embedding the implementation of the principles of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers (‘Concordat’) and in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) Research Environment.

Research staff are well placed to inform, represent and develop the skills and knowledge base of research staff colleagues in the areas that matter most to them. Research staff associations are in a unique position to co-ordinate the responses of research staff to policy changes that affect their working conditions, professional development and career opportunities and to ensure that the provisions introduced and delivered by higher education institution employers are tailored to their needs and that research staff participate in their development.

For more information, please visit this link

http://www.vitae.ac.uk/policy-practice/916-532601/Vitae-Research-Staff-Conference-2012.html

 

Research assessment

The University is currently preparing to take part in the first Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment, which is a national exercise to assess the quality of research in UK higher education institutions. To ensure that the University abides by its principles of transparency, consistency, accountability and inclusivity in preparing and finalising the BU submission to the REF, the BU REF 2014 Code of Practice (v2), BU REF Frequently Asked Questions and BU REF Individual Staff Circumstances Disclosure Form have been developed and are now being formally disseminated to all BU academic staff to ensure all eligible staff are fully informed. When you have received this email, it is important that you read the information contained in these documents and you are therefore required to acknowledge receipt of this communication by sending the automatic ‘read receipt’ to the email as soon as possible.

These documents are also available on the BU Research Blog under the ‘REF’ tab.

In conjunction with the dissemination of these key documents, two open sessions have been scheduled for the autumn to give you an opportunity to ask any questions you may have prior to the collection of the first round of BU REF Individual Staff Circumstances Disclosure Forms (due to be returned by 31 October 2012):

Talbot Campus:

Date: 27 September 2012

Time : 11.30am to 1.00pm

Venue: The Wallace Lecture Theatre, Weymouth House

Lansdowne Campus:

Date: 11 October 2012

Time: 3.00pm to 4.30pm

Venue: EB306, Executive Business Centre

You are invited to attend either event – more details will be circulated in due course. If you are unable to attend but have any queries, please contact Peng Peng Ooi (Research Development Officer – REF: pengpeng.ooi@bournemouth.ac.uk).

Many thanks for your cooperation in this and hopefully this information is useful for you.

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 2011 and 31 July 2012.

Event types that should be returned include:

  • 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.

If you have been involved with an event which could be returned, please could you let your contact (see below) know the event name and date, whether it was free or chargeable, and the estimated number of attendees:

  • if you are in a School – your Director of Operations or Deputy Dean (R&E) / equivalent
  • if you are in a Professional Service – please contact Julie Northam in the Research Development Unit

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.

REF open forum – today 11:30am – all welcome!

Research assessment

The first of our two open REF sessions takes place this morning at 11:30am in the Wallace Lecture Theatre, Weymouth House, Talbot Campus. The session is open to all staff to come along and ask any questions relating the the REF submission and BU’s REF preparations, including questions about the BU REF code of practice, equality and diversity, staff selection, mock exercises, individual staff circumstances, etc.

The sessions are chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor Prof Matthew Bennett and Julie Northam, Peng Peng Ooi, James Palfreman-Kay, Judith Wilson and a number of the UOA Leaders will also be present.

This is an excellent opportunity to ask any questions you have regarding the REF!

Two open forums are planned, details are: 

Talbot Campus

Date: 27 September 2012

Time : 11.30am to 1.00pm

Venue: The Wallace Lecture Theatre, Weymouth House

 

Lansdowne Campus

Date: 11 October 2012

Time: 3.00pm to 4.30pm

Venue: EB306, Executive Business Centre

 

There is no need to book – simply turn up!

Want to find out about how BU will shape submissions for the REF? Then come to one of our open forums!

Research assessment

Back in July we posted a copy of the BU REF 2014 Code of Practice on the Research Blog (BU REF Code of Practice gets the green light!). The Code of Practice sets out the process that the University will take in shaping submissions for REF 2014, including how outputs, staff and UOAs will be selected for submission and is available from the BU Staff Intranet: BU REF 2014 Code of Practice.

Peng Peng has recently emailed all academic staff with a copy of the Code of Practice, as well as the procedure for raising individual staff circumstances which may have affected an individual’s ability to undertake research to their full potential during the assessment period (such as being part-time, maternity leave, or being an early career researcher).

We are holding a couple of open forums for staff to engage with the Code of Practice and the procedure for raising individual staff circumstances, and these are open to all staff to attend. You can ask questions to a select panel from the internal REF management team, including Prof Matthew Bennett, Julie Northam, Peng Peng Ooi, James Palfreman-Kay, Judith Wilson and a number of the UOA Leaders.

This is an excellent opportunity to ask any questions you have regarding the REF!

Two open forums are planned, details are: 

 

Talbot Campus

Date: 27 September 2012

Time : 11.30am to 1.00pm

Venue: The Wallace Lecture Theatre, Weymouth House

 

Lansdowne Campus

Date: 11 October 2012

Time: 3.00pm to 4.30pm

Venue: EB306, Executive Business Centre

 

There is no need to book – simply turn up!