Category / Research assessment

REF Week: REF Frequently Asked Questions – Outputs

REF Subjects, Research assessment

Photo by Samuel Zeller on Unsplash

If you want to know more about REF2021, the Research Excellence Framework website includes a number of frequently asked questions (FAQs), which might be useful if you have any queries about your own submission.

In the meantime, here is a selection of some relating to Outputs.

Outputs

Can outputs published while at a non-UK institution, or as an independent scholar, be submitted to REF 2021?

Yes, where they are within the publication period and meet any other applicable eligibility criteria, these outputs may be included in submissions by the institution employing the staff member on the census date.

Will part-time staff have to meet the requirement for a minimum of one output?

Yes. The minimum and maximum limits on the number of outputs will apply to the person, not their FTE.

What will happen if a unit does not submit the required number of outputs or case studies?

Each missing output or case study will receive an ‘unclassified’ score.

Does the REF assessment process distinguish between research outputs on the basis of mode of publication, place of publication or publisher?

No. The REF is governed by a principle of equity and is committed to the fair and equal assessment of all types of research and forms of research output.

Will approaches to double-weighting monographs be determined at main panel level?

Yes. As was the case in REF 2014, each main panel will provide guidance on how outputs of extended scale and scope are characterised in their disciplines, and on the process for requesting an output to be double-weighted.

Does each output for which double-weighting is requested need to have its own individual reserve output? Or can one submit a list of ‘reserve outputs’ (in order of preference) to cover several double-weighting requests?

A ranked list would add greater complexity to the submission process for institutions, in ensuring that the minimum and maximum boundaries are adhered to in the final set of assessed outputs. Institutions should therefore include a ‘reserve’ output for each output requested for double-weighting.

Will double-weighting outputs be optional?

Yes. The decision whether to request double-weighting lies with the submitting unit.

Will a double-weighted item from a single individual count as two items of their five or one?

Where the double-weighting request is accepted, the output will count as two items against the individual to whom it is attributed. (If it is a co-authored output, institutions may attribute the output to a maximum of two members of staff returned within the same submission, in which case it will count as one output for each of them). If the panel does not accept the request, and the output remains single-weighted, it will count as one item.

In the event the request is accepted, or in the event that it is not and the reserve output is assessed instead, the requirement for a minimum of one output should still be met for each Category A submitted staff member (unless individual circumstances apply), and no more than five outputs should be attributed to any one member of current or former staff.

Where an institution employs a member of staff on the census date, which of their outputs can be submitted?

For Category A submitted staff, outputs that are within the publication period and meet any other applicable eligibility criteria (for example, open access requirements) are eligible.

Can the outputs from one staff member be submitted to different units within the same institution?

No. An individual and their outputs can only be submitted to one unit of assessment. Where an individual holds a joint appointment across two or more submitting units within the same institution, the institution must decide on one submission in which to return the individual.

Want to know more?

For more information about Outputs, see Part 3, Section 2 of the REF Guidance on Submissions and Part 3, Section 3 of the REF Panel Criteria and Working Methods.

Also, have a look at our other BU REF Week blog posts.

Welcome to REF Week!

REF Subjects, Research assessment

Photo by Cathal Mac an Bheatha on Unsplash

Introduction to the Research Excellence Framework 2021

This week is REF Week on the BU Research Blog. Each day we will be explaining a different element of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) as a quick reference guide to help you prepare for the forthcoming REF exercise – REF 2021.

What is the REF? 

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions (HEIs). It is conducted jointly by Research England, the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland. In England, the results of the REF will determine the annual quality-related research (QR) grant distributed from UKRI to HEIs.

The REF will assess research excellence through a process of expert review, carried out by expert panels for each of the 34 discipline-based units of assessment (UOAs), under the guidance of four main panels.

The REF will focus on assessing three elements, which together reflect the key characteristics of research excellence (weightings for REF 2021 in brackets):

  • The quality (originality, significance and rigour) of research outputs (60%).
  • The reach and significance of the impact of research beyond academia (25%).
  • The vitality and sustainability of the environment that supports research (15%).

Each of these elements will be assessed against appropriate criteria for excellence, and rated by expert panels on a five-point scale ranging from 4* (excellent, world-leading) to Unclassified.

REF Assessment Period

The REF assessment period is different for the three elements:

  • Outputs – 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2020.
  • Impact – 1 August 2013 to 31 July 2020 (underpinning research must have been produced between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020).
  • Environment – 1 August 2013 until 31 July 2020.

The REF submission will take place in autumn 2020, with the results published in December 2021.

Check out the posts appearing on the Blog every day this week as part of REF Week!

You can also read BU’s REF webpages here: https://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/ref/.

REF 2021 – Final Guidance Published!

Guidance, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Research England have this morning published the final guidance for REF 2021 submission. The following documents:

  • Guidance on submissions
  • Panel criteria and working methods
  • Guidance on codes of practice

Are available under the publications page of the REF 2021 website: https://www.ref.ac.uk/publications/

For further information, and to read the official announcement, please visit the REF news page

‘4*’ paper to end the year…

Research assessment

Aligning with BU’s 2025 Medical Science strategy and the proposed department of Medical Sciences, research findings to be published in Nature Communications describe a potential new target for the control of kidney failure in diabetics. BU (co-lead authorship), in collaboration with clinicians and scientists at the universities of Bristol, Edinburgh, Cambridge, Hong Kong, Toronto, Northwestern (Chicago), Otago in New Zealand, MRC Harwell and the pathology department in Glasgow (phew!), we have identified a metabolic signature in the kidney’s filtration cells (known as podocytes) that links insulin resistance to kidney failure. This is important because it details a mechanism which might be ‘tweaked’ in patients suffering from diabetic nephropathy – one of the most common causes of kidney failure in the world.

Paul S. Hartley.

Transparency in research: Health Research Authority survey results

NHS, open access, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy

The HRA recently carried out a survey which aimed to establish some of the current obstacles to transparency, and to identify future opportunities to improve practices.
The survey was advertised to researchers, researcher managers, sponsors and funders in order to collate views surrounding research transparency.

You can see the results here on the HRA website.

It’s vital that research participants are informed about the results of research, and in the beginning they are told about the research and implications, in a transparent fashion.

BU has access to the ClinicalTrials.gov system so get in touch if you would like access. This is a great opportunity to register your study and study results in the public domain.
Despite the name, the system may be used for other clinical research projects.

2019 Good Clinical Practice training dates

NHS, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Training

Good Clinical Practice, or ‘GCP’, is a requirement for those wishing to work on clinical research projects in a healthcare setting.

GCP is the international ethical, scientific and practical standard to which all clinical research is conducted. By undertaking GCP, you’re able to demonstrate the rights, safety and wellbeing of your research participants are protected, and that the data collected are reliable.

The local dates for the 2019 Good Clinical Practice full day and half day refresher training are now on the Clinical Governance blog!

Get in touch with Research Ethics to find out how to book.

Health Research Authority releases eLearning for student researchers

NHS, PG research, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, student research, Training

The HRA have improved the information provided on their website for student researchers and those who support them, in planning to conduct research within the NHS.

The organisation has provided three bite size eLearning modules with a focus on the following topics:

  • Sponsors’ and supervisors’ role in educational research
  • Applying for HRA and HCRW (Health and Care Research Wales) Approval
  • Setting up research sites in England and Wales.

You can see the update here, and access the modules here.

Remember that support is on offer at BU if you are thinking of introducing your research ideas into the NHS – email the Research Ethics mailbox, and take a look at the Clinical Governance blog.

REF Internal Review Panels – Recruiting Now!

BU Challenges, REF Subjects, Research assessment

To help us prepare for our upcoming submission to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 we are establishing a number of internal review panels to review and assess BU’s research outputs and impact case studies.

Expressions of Interest (EoI) are invited from academic staff who are interested in being a Panel Member. There will be one panel per Unit of Assessment (UOA) listed below. Those interested should identify which UOA Panel they would like to be considered for and put forward a short case (suggested length of one paragraph) as to why they are interested in the role and what they think they could bring to it. EoIs should be emailed to ref@bournemouth.ac.uk by 14th December 2018.

UOA Teams would particularly welcome EoIs from those who have:

  • Experience reviewing for previous REF stocktake exercises
  • Experience in editorship
  • Experience peer review

Full details of the role, the process of recruitment and terms of reference for the panels themselves can be found here.

Any queries regarding a specific panel should be directed to the UOA Leader. General enquiries should be directed to Shelly Anne Stringer, RKEO.

Unit of Assessment UOA Leader(s)
2 Public Health, Health Services and Primary Care Prof. Edwin Van Teijlingen
3 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
4 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience Dr. Peter Hills
11 Computer Science and Informatics Prof. Hamid Bouchachia
12 Engineering Prof. Zulfiqar Khan
14 Geography and Environmental Studies Prof. Rob Britton
15  Archaeology Prof. Kate Welham and Prof. Holger Schutkowski
17 Business and Management Studies Prof. Dean Patton
18 Law Dr Sascha-Dominik Bachman
20 Social Work and Social Policy Prof. Jonathan Parker
23 Education Prof. Julian McDougall and Prof. Debbie Holley
24 Sport and Exercise Sciences, Leisure and Tourism Prof. Tim Rees (Sport) Prof. Adam Blake (Tourism)
27 English Language and Literature Prof. Bronwen Thomas
32 Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory Prof. Jian Chang
33 Music, Drama, Dance, Performing Arts, Film and Screen Studies Prof. Kerstin Stutterheim
34 Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information Management Prof. Iain MacRury

 

Free FutureLearn courses

Knowledge Exchange, NHS, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Training

The FutureLearn website has a whole host of different courses you can take advantage of whether for personal interest or educational needs, and for free.

Here are some courses that are specific to (clinical) research. Enjoy! –

*to be done in addition to the mandatory ethics modules.

#DataSavesLives – using patient data for research

Guidance, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, Publishing, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, writing

Patient data underpins and leads to improvements in research and care.

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has recently shared a resource surrounding the use of patient data in clinical research. The page contains a number of useful links to guidance such as the NHS pages on why patients’ data matters and also the Understanding Patient Data resource, which outlines a set of key principles that should be followed in using patient data for research purposes.

Acknowledging contribution

It’s important that if a researcher uses patient data, that they acknowledge it by using the following citation –

“This work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support”

The above has been developed by use MY data, a movement of patients, carers and relatives, in place to ensure that the patient data used is protected by the appropriate safeguards, and is treated with the respect and confidentiality it deserves.

National data opt-out programme

The page likewise signposts the above programme which allows patients and the public to opt-out of their confidential patient information being used for planning and research purposes.

All health and care organisation will uphold these choices by March 2020.

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

Guidance, HEIF, 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 shortly. Data returned is used to calculate our HEIF grant.

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 2017 and 31 July 2018.

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, ESRC Festival of Social Science and Cafe Scientifique series are likely to be eligible for inclusion and we will collate this information on your behalf centrally.

If you have been involved with any other event which could be returned, please could you email your contact as soon as possible (see below) and confirm: 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:

  • SciTech – Norman Stock
  • FoM – Rob Hydon
  • HSS – Deirdre Sparrowhawk
  • FMC – Laura Hampshaw
  • Professional Service – Julie Northam (RKEO)

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

Forthcoming RKEDF events

Funding opportunities, Fusion, Research assessment

We have some great events coming up over the next few weeks to help support you in your research activity within the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF)

We have also grouped the RKEDF events around your needs, so if, for example, you are an Early Career Researcher or need to know about external funding, you can click on the link to find all the RKEDF sessions that may assist you. You can also find related events by using the link on each session’s page.

November

Tuesday 6th November RKEDF: Research Ethics @ BU
Tuesday 6th November RKEDF: Impact Basics (FMC)
Wednesday 7th November RKEDF: Research Outputs – Writing Day
Wednesday 7th November RKEDF: Main Panel B UOA 11 – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Wednesday 7th November RKEDF: Main Panel B – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Monday 12th November RKEDF: Main Panel B UOA 12 – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Thursday 15th November RKEDF: Main Panel C UOA 14 – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Thursday 15th November RKEDF: Main Panel C UOA 18 – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Thursday 15th November RKEDF: Main Panel C UOA 23 – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Thursday 15th November RKEDF: Main Panel C – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Friday 16th November RKEDF: Impact Basics (HSS)
Friday 16th November RKEDF: Impact Case Study Writing Retreat
Tuesday 20th November RKEDF: Impact Basics (FST)
Friday 23rd November RKEDF: SciVal Development – Scopus
Friday 23rd November RKEDF: SciVal Development – SciVal Introduction
Friday 23rd November RKEDF: SciVal Development – SciVal Intermediate
Friday 23rd November RKEDF: SciVal Development – SciVal for REF Purposes

December

Wednesday 5th December RKEDF: Writing Academy – Day 1 of 3
Monday 10th December RKEDF: Technical Bid Writing Workshop
Wednesday 12th December RKEDF: Main Panel D UOA 27 – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Wednesday 12th December RKEDF: Main Panel D UOA 32 – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Wednesday 12th December RKEDF: Main Panel D UOA 34 – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Wednesday 12th December RKEDF: Main Panel D – Improving the Quality Score of Your Output
Friday 14th December RKEDF: Impact Case Study Writing Retreat
Monday 17th December RKEDF: Main Panel A – Developing Impact Case Studies for your REF Panel: the good, bad and ugly
Tuesday 18th December RKEDF: Main Panel B – Developing Impact Case Studies for your REF Panel: the good, bad and ugly

The above list does not include events where attendance requires faculty nominations / applications or are part of the Early Career Researcher Network schedule for 18/19.

You can see all the Organisational Development and RKEDF events in one place on the handy calendar of events.

Please note that all sessions are now targeted, so look closely at the event page to ensure that the event is suitable for you. In addition, RKEDF events now require the approval of your Head of Department (or other nominated approver). Please follow the instructions given on the event page and the template email for you to initiate the booking request.

If you have any queries, please get in touch!

EU FIRST Project

innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, open access, Research assessment

A Bournemouth University team from the Faculty of Science and Technology visited University of Groningen for FIRST mid-term review. It was a very productive meeting with a lot of effective outcomes for research and knowledge exchange. Dr. Lai Xu and Dr. Paul de Vrieze are FIRST coordinators representing Bournemouth University and the team is pleased to announce that FIRST will continue to move towards a factory of the future for European Union.

If you want to know more about the project and get involved, please contact Dr. Lai Xu or Dr. Paul de Vrieze. You can also follow our social medial links on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube Channel.

During the mid-term review meeting, the FIRST EU project advisor Irina Elena Tiron giving a talk on RISE projects. A useful instrument for researchers in EU (and beyond).

Publishing systematic and scoping reviews to improve your research profile

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion themes, PG research, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Training, writing

With the forthcoming REF 2021 in mind we would like to encourage both staff and postgraduate students to consider writing up their literature reviews as journal articles. Systematic and scoping reviews are a great way of publishing quality publications. They are highly valued as REF submissions, especially, but not only, in the health field.

There is plenty of support at Bournemouth University: from academic colleagues, with vast experience in writing reviews, to the library team, who can advise on, for example, developing your systematic search strategy and which databases to search.

 

You can start with publishing your review question and research strategy on PROSPERO, international prospective register of systematic reviews. We would like to highlight just one BU example in the field of the social sciences.  FHSS PhD student Orlanda Harvey published her proposed review ‘Support for people who use anabolic androgenic steroids: an investigation into what they want and what they currently access’ late last year on PROSPERO [1].

You might like to have a look at reviews published by Bournemouth University staff, which can be found by searching BURO, our institutional repository of research outputs. Moreover, BU academics have published several methods papers on the doing and writing systematic reviews [2-4].

 

Information about searching the literature for systematic reviews is available on this guide by the library team.

 

Other pages with useful information include:

 

Hopefully we have encouraged you to think about publishing your literature reviews as separate articles, and to seek help early in that process!

 

José López Blanco & Edwin van Teijlingen

 

 

For further information, please contact:

José López Blanco, Faculty Librarian (Health and Social Sciences), Library & Learning Support, Academic Services at tel 67350 or email:  hsslibteam@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

References:

  1. Harvey, O., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E., Keen., S. (2017) Support for people who use anabolic androgenic steroids: an investigation into what they want and what they currently access. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017075199 Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017075199
  2. van Teijlingen E., Napper, M., Bruce, J., Ireland. J. (2006) Systematic reviews in midwifery, RCM Midwives Journal 9(5): 186-188.
  3. van Teijlingen, ER, Simkhada, B., Ireland J., Simkhada P., Bruce J. (2012) Evidence-based health care in Nepal: The importance of systematic reviews, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 1(4): 114-118.
  4. Stewart, F., Fraser, C., Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2014) Are men difficult to find? Identifying male-specific studies in MEDLINE and Embase, Systematics Reviews 3,78.

NIHR call for peer reviewers

Knowledge Exchange, NHS, Research assessment, Training

The National Institute for Health Research are in urgent need of psychiatrists and psychologists to peer review funding applications.

See the original tweet here advertising this opportunity, and how to apply here*.

*The link takes you to how to apply as a professional peer reviewer, from any clinical speciality. You can review for the NIHR for professional development (amongst other initiatives), and they need a wide range of expertise:

  • Academics
  • Clinicians
  • Health service managers and clinicians
  • Practitioners
  • Public health and related professionals
  • Social care sector workers
  • Patients and the Public
  • Anyone whose work has a potential impact on health.