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! –
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 Dataresource, 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.
The British Academy is currently inviting applications from UK-based early career scholars for the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellowships for Overseas Researchers. The Academy is an overseas nominating authority for this fellowship scheme.
Purpose of Fellowships
This scheme is for scholars in the UK who are at an early stage of their career and wish to conduct research in Japan for a period of 12-24 months.
The scheme, which is wholly funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), provides the opportunity for highly qualified young researchers based in the UK to engage and collaborate with leading research groups in universities and other research institutions in Japan. In its capacity as an overseas nominating authority for this scheme, the British Academy is able to nominate a quota of candidates each year.
Eligibility Requirements
For applicants to be considered for nomination by the British Academy, the research undertaken must be on a subject within the social sciences or humanities. Applicants must have received their PhD within the last six years prior to their application and must be ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. They must have a research proposal agreed with a host researcher employed at a university/research institution in Japan.
The scheme is not open to Japanese nationals, those who have permanent residency in Japan, or to applicants who have previously been awarded a fellowship under the JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme for Foreign Researchers.
Value
The scheme provides subsistence funding as well as a settling-in allowance and a return air ticket. The Japanese host institution may also apply through the Japanese host researcher for a “Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research” for cooperative research-related expenses.
Application Process
Applications must be submitted online using the British Academy’s Grant Management System, Flexi-Grant®.
Application and referee/head of department statements deadline and current UK host institution approval deadline: Wednesday 12 December 2018 (17.00 UK time).
Earliest start date for research: 1 April 2019.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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:
Guidance from the Centre for Review and Dissemination
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:
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
van Teijlingen E., Napper, M., Bruce, J., Ireland. J. (2006) Systematic reviews in midwifery, RCM MidwivesJournal 9(5): 186-188.
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.
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.
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) have a call out currently for peer reviewers to assess research into reducing health inequalities for rural populations.
You can find out how to become a reviewer here along with how becoming an NIHR peer reviewer can benefit you, and what is involved.
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.
Prof Alison McConnell of HSS’s iWell Research Centre has been part of an international, multi-centre placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive inspiratory muscle training for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The trial, published in this month’s edition of the journal Thorax (impact factor 8.272) tested whether the addition of specific training of the inspiratory muscles enhanced the benefits to patients of traditional pulmonary rehabilitation programmes. It’s well-established that when undertaken separately, both interventions are effective; improving exercise tolerance, breathlessness and quality of life. However, there has been great controversy about whether adding the two interventions together provides superior outcomes.
The trial involved five centres in Europe and Canada, and 219 patients with COPD, taking 6 years to complete. The data indicated that exercise endurance time and breathlessness improved to a greater extent in patients who received rehabilitation plus inspiratory muscle training. The study also found that, irrespective of group allocation, those participants who achieved the greatest improvement in their inspiratory muscle function, also showed the greatest improvements in functional and clinical outcomes.
Application Deadline: Wednesday 12 September 2018 (17.00 UK Time)
The British Academy is providing mid-career to senior scholars – active in any discipline within the social sciences and the humanities and based in any country overseas – with the opportunity to work for four years in the UK and make a contribution to UK research and higher education. This new programme is supported under the UK Government’s National Productivity Investment Fund. It aims to demonstrate and further enhance the UK’s commitment to international research partnerships and collaboration as well as strengthen the UK’s research capacity and capability in the humanities and the social sciences.
Aims
Up to 10 Global Professorships each year will be offered during the course of the programme (which will run for three years in the first instance). Each award will provide funding for four years to an outstanding international researcher, not currently working in the United Kingdom, to bring their research experience to the UK. The purpose of the Global Professorships is to enable world-class scholars to further their individual research goals while strengthening the UK research base and advancing the research goals and strategies of their UK host universities. Each four-year appointment is intended to be a complete project in itself and is expected to involve a specific research focus, although the British Academy does not have a preferred model for the balance of time to be spent between research and teaching (which may vary over the course of the award and will depend on the UK host institution’s needs).
Eligibility Requirements
Suitable candidates for the Global Professorships include internationally-recognised mid-career to senior researchers active in any field within the social sciences or the humanities who are currently employed outside the UK. The applicant must either be in a permanent (full-time or part-time) position at their home institution overseas or have a fixed-term position for the duration of the Global Professorship. Applicants must be available to take up a long-term secondment or employment at an eligible UK university or research institution.
Value and Duration
Awards are expected to run for four years each. The British Academy will provide up to £250,000 per annum for the first three years, making a total contribution of £750,000 per award. The costs of the fourth year will be expected to be committed in full by the UK host institution. Successful applicants to the 2018 competition will be required to start their awards between 1 December 2018 and 31 May 2019.
Application Process
Applications must be submitted online using the British Academy’s Grant Management System, Flexi-Grant®
UK Host Institution Approval Deadline: Thursday 13 September 2018 (17.00 UK Time)
Contact Details
Please contact internationalgrants@britac.ac.uk or call 020 7969 5220 for further information.
In the first instance if you are interested in applying for the above please get in touch with a member of the RKEO Funding Development team.
The deadline for expressions of interest for Leaders for UOAs 2 and 3 has been extended to Monday 16 April at 5pm. EoIs should be sent by email to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).
BU is preparing submissions for units of assessment (UOAs) for REF 2021. Preparation for each UOA is led by a UOA Leader who is supported by an Impact Champion and an Output Champion. From March 2018, UOA Leaders are recruited via an open and transparent process. All academic staff have the opportunity to put themselves forward for UOA Leader roles. The roles are until December 2020.
We are currently seeking expressions of interest (EoIs) from academic staff interested in leading preparations for two UOAs:
Public health, health services and primary care
Allied health professions, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy
UOA Leaders serve a term up to December 2020, although they can choose to step down during this time. The UOA Leader undertakes a vital role in driving and delivering BU’s REF submission, influencing the University’s preparations, shaping optimal submissions for each UOA and ultimately having a significant effect on BU’s REF 2021 results.
Key responsibilities of the UOA Leader role include:
Providing leadership, advice and support on all issues relating to research planning, impact, performance metrics and published guidance relating to the UOA
Considering the widest available staff pool for the UOA and present these options to the REF Committee (being mindful of where this potentially impacts upon other UOAs)
Having an institutional outlook for the REF, i.e. aiming to optimise BU’s overall REF performance
Optimising the UOA submission and that of related UOAs by working to mitigate weaknesses and to highlight strengths across all aspects of the submission
Ensuring that outputs undergo rigorous review, internally and externally in order to assess quality prior to inclusion for REF
Working with Impact champions and the Impact Working Group to understand the interrelationship of case study quality, selection, placement and staff numbers for the UOA
Leading on REF communications within departments represented in the UOA and be the key point of contact and advice with regard to the UOA for Heads of research entities, DDRPPs and Executive Deans
Working closely with RKEO who are managing the central REF preparation and submission process
Attend the REF Committee meetings
Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment and is recognised accordingly. UOA Leaders are given time to attend meetings and take responsibility for tasks. As such potential applicants should discuss their workload balance with their Head of Department before applying.
Application process:
To apply for either role, please submit a short statement (suggested length 300 words) stating which role you are interested in and explaining your interest in the role and what you could bring to it. This should be sent by email to Julie Northam by 5pm on Monday 16 April 2018.
The EoIs will be reviewed by a gender balanced panel comprising a DDRPP and a member of the professoriate. Applicants successful at this stage will be invited to an interview with the same panel.
The selection criteria used at EoI and interview stage are outlined below. Each criterion carries a total possible score of 5. The role will be offered to the highest scoring applicant. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.
Commitment, motivation and enthusiasm (scored out of 5): Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment. UOA Leaders need to be willing and able to make this commitment. They need to be enthusiastic about the REF and boosting research performance.
Skills and knowledge (scored out of 5): UOA Leaders should bring with them skills and knowledge to optimise BU’s REF preparations and submission (e.g. knowledge of the REF process, expertise in research metrics, leadership experience, knowledge about impact, experience of writing and delivering research strategies, etc).
Plans for preparing the UOA submission and awareness of the potential challenges and opportunities UOA Leaders are responsible for driving and delivering the UOA’s submission to REF 2021 whilst also maintaining an institutional outlook to optimise BU’s overall REF performance. They should have ideas for how they will do this and the potential challenges and opportunities of this, specific to the UOA.
Questions:
Questions regarding the process should be directed to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).
UOA-specific questions should be directed to Prof Vanora Hundley (Deputy Dean for Research in HSS) or to Prof Tiantian Zhang (Deputy Dean for Research in FST)
Today (12 April) at 5pm is the deadline for EoIs for Leaders for UOAs 2 and 3. EoIs should be sent by email to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).
BU is preparing submissions for units of assessment (UOAs) for REF 2021. Preparation for each UOA is led by a UOA Leader who is supported by an Impact Champion and an Output Champion. From March 2018, UOA Leaders are recruited via an open and transparent process. All academic staff have the opportunity to put themselves forward for UOA Leader roles. The roles are until December 2020.
We are currently seeking expressions of interest (EoIs) from academic staff interested in leading preparations for two UOAs:
Public health, health services and primary care
Allied health professions, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy
UOA Leaders serve a term up to December 2020, although they can choose to step down during this time. The UOA Leader undertakes a vital role in driving and delivering BU’s REF submission, influencing the University’s preparations, shaping optimal submissions for each UOA and ultimately having a significant effect on BU’s REF 2021 results.
Key responsibilities of the UOA Leader role include:
Providing leadership, advice and support on all issues relating to research planning, impact, performance metrics and published guidance relating to the UOA
Considering the widest available staff pool for the UOA and present these options to the REF Committee (being mindful of where this potentially impacts upon other UOAs)
Having an institutional outlook for the REF, i.e. aiming to optimise BU’s overall REF performance
Optimising the UOA submission and that of related UOAs by working to mitigate weaknesses and to highlight strengths across all aspects of the submission
Ensuring that outputs undergo rigorous review, internally and externally in order to assess quality prior to inclusion for REF
Working with Impact champions and the Impact Working Group to understand the interrelationship of case study quality, selection, placement and staff numbers for the UOA
Leading on REF communications within departments represented in the UOA and be the key point of contact and advice with regard to the UOA for Heads of research entities, DDRPPs and Executive Deans
Working closely with RKEO who are managing the central REF preparation and submission process
Attend the REF Committee meetings
Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment and is recognised accordingly. UOA Leaders are given time to attend meetings and take responsibility for tasks. As such potential applicants should discuss their workload balance with their Head of Department before applying.
Application process:
To apply for either role, please submit a short statement (suggested length 300 words) stating which role you are interested in and explaining your interest in the role and what you could bring to it. This should be sent by email to Julie Northam by 5pm on Thursday 12 April 2018.
The EoIs will be reviewed by a gender balanced panel comprising a DDRPP and a member of the professoriate. Applicants successful at this stage will be invited to an interview with the same panel.
The selection criteria used at EoI and interview stage are outlined below. Each criterion carries a total possible score of 5. The role will be offered to the highest scoring applicant. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.
Commitment, motivation and enthusiasm (scored out of 5): Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment. UOA Leaders need to be willing and able to make this commitment. They need to be enthusiastic about the REF and boosting research performance.
Skills and knowledge (scored out of 5): UOA Leaders should bring with them skills and knowledge to optimise BU’s REF preparations and submission (e.g. knowledge of the REF process, expertise in research metrics, leadership experience, knowledge about impact, experience of writing and delivering research strategies, etc).
Plans for preparing the UOA submission and awareness of the potential challenges and opportunities UOA Leaders are responsible for driving and delivering the UOA’s submission to REF 2021 whilst also maintaining an institutional outlook to optimise BU’s overall REF performance. They should have ideas for how they will do this and the potential challenges and opportunities of this, specific to the UOA.
Questions:
Questions regarding the process should be directed to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).
UOA-specific questions should be directed to Prof Vanora Hundley (Deputy Dean for Research in HSS) or to Prof Tiantian Zhang (Deputy Dean for Research in FST)
BU is preparing submissions for units of assessment (UOAs) for REF 2021. Preparation for each UOA is led by a UOA Leader who is supported by an Impact Champion and an Output Champion. From March 2018, UOA Leaders are recruited via an open and transparent process. All academic staff have the opportunity to put themselves forward for UOA Leader roles. The roles are until December 2020.
We are currently seeking expressions of interest (EoIs) from academic staff interested in leading preparations for two UOAs:
Public health, health services and primary care
Allied health professions, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy
UOA Leaders serve a term up to December 2020, although they can choose to step down during this time. The UOA Leader undertakes a vital role in driving and delivering BU’s REF submission, influencing the University’s preparations, shaping optimal submissions for each UOA and ultimately having a significant effect on BU’s REF 2021 results.
Key responsibilities of the UOA Leader role include:
Providing leadership, advice and support on all issues relating to research planning, impact, performance metrics and published guidance relating to the UOA
Considering the widest available staff pool for the UOA and present these options to the REF Committee (being mindful of where this potentially impacts upon other UOAs)
Having an institutional outlook for the REF, i.e. aiming to optimise BU’s overall REF performance
Optimising the UOA submission and that of related UOAs by working to mitigate weaknesses and to highlight strengths across all aspects of the submission
Ensuring that outputs undergo rigorous review, internally and externally in order to assess quality prior to inclusion for REF
Working with Impact champions and the Impact Working Group to understand the interrelationship of case study quality, selection, placement and staff numbers for the UOA
Leading on REF communications within departments represented in the UOA and be the key point of contact and advice with regard to the UOA for Heads of research entities, DDRPPs and Executive Deans
Working closely with RKEO who are managing the central REF preparation and submission process
Attend the REF Committee meetings
Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment and is recognised accordingly. UOA Leaders are given time to attend meetings and take responsibility for tasks. As such potential applicants should discuss their workload balance with their Head of Department before applying.
Application process:
To apply for either role, please submit a short statement (suggested length 300 words) stating which role you are interested in and explaining your interest in the role and what you could bring to it. This should be sent by email to Julie Northam by 5pm on Thursday 12 April 2018.
The EoIs will be reviewed by a gender balanced panel comprising a DDRPP and a member of the professoriate. Applicants successful at this stage will be invited to an interview with the same panel.
The selection criteria used at EoI and interview stage are outlined below. Each criterion carries a total possible score of 5. The role will be offered to the highest scoring applicant. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.
Commitment, motivation and enthusiasm (scored out of 5): Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment. UOA Leaders need to be willing and able to make this commitment. They need to be enthusiastic about the REF and boosting research performance.
Skills and knowledge (scored out of 5): UOA Leaders should bring with them skills and knowledge to optimise BU’s REF preparations and submission (e.g. knowledge of the REF process, expertise in research metrics, leadership experience, knowledge about impact, experience of writing and delivering research strategies, etc).
Plans for preparing the UOA submission and awareness of the potential challenges and opportunities UOA Leaders are responsible for driving and delivering the UOA’s submission to REF 2021 whilst also maintaining an institutional outlook to optimise BU’s overall REF performance. They should have ideas for how they will do this and the potential challenges and opportunities of this, specific to the UOA.
Questions:
Questions regarding the process should be directed to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).
UOA-specific questions should be directed to Prof Vanora Hundley (Deputy Dean for Research in HSS) or to Prof Tiantian Zhang (Deputy Dean for Research in FST)
Bournemouth University leads the Kosovo-strand of a major four-year AHRC ‘Global Challenges’ project titled ‘Changing the Story‘. This project aims at supporting the building of inclusive civil societies (CSOs) with, and for, young people in five post-conflict countries. It asks how the arts, heritage, and human rights education can support youth-centred approaches to civil society building in Cambodia, Colombia, Kosovo, Rwanda and South Africa. The Kosovo strand benefits from an established track record of collaboration with University of Prishtina (Co-I) and Stacion: Centre for Contemporary Arts in Prishtina as well as several arts-based civil society organisations in the country. The BU-led strand focuses on formal and informal civic education through the arts in Kosovo, to be explored locally by a Postgraduate Research Assistant, attached to University of Prishtina, through a critical review and proof of concept exercise during the first year. In support, BU is contributing a fully-funded PhD scholarship under the title ‘Imagining New Futures: Engaging Young People Through Participatory Arts in Post-Conflict Kosovo‘, which is currently being advertised.
International collaborative activities commenced last week in collaboration with an internationally-acclaimed CSO partner in Dorset, devoted to developing global youth citizenship through culture and the arts. The award-winning Complete Freedom of Truth project (TCFT), with which BU collaborated already previously, kindly offered a one-week residency to Albert Heta, Director of Stacion: Centre for Contemporary Arts in Prishtina. This residency brought together a group of artists, workshop leaders and young people from across the UK between February 12 and 16 in Bridport. Albert’s visit from Kosovo was funded by the AHRC and facilitated by BU’s new Research Centre ‘Seldom Heard-Voices: Marginalisation and Society Integration’ of the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences (FHSS). Together with Albert, some of the Centre’s members also participates in the events organised by TCFT, exchanged experiences and discussed best practice of working with young people of various background through the arts towards social justice. TCFT has a long history of working with young people, internationally, starting in post-conflict Srebrenica in 2008. Based on our observations during one week in Dorset, including of the issues selected as important by the young UK-participants during this period, we are currently reflecting on the extent to, and ways in, which arts-based interventions with a given set of young people in one specific socio-cultural context and its underpinning conceptualisations (such as of empowerment or vulnerability of, and pressures on, young people) can or cannot be transferred to another, such as that in which young people in Kosovo negotiate their aspirations.
Lizzie Gadd warns against jumping on ‘bad metrics’ bandwagons without really engaging with the more complex responsible metrics agenda beneath.
An undoubted legacy of the Metric Tide report has been an increased focus on the responsible use of metrics and along with this a notion of ‘bad metrics’. Indeed, the report itself even recommended awarding an annual ‘Bad Metrics Prize’. This has never been awarded as far as I’m aware, but nominations are still open on their web pages. There has been a lot of focus on responsible metrics recently. The Forum for Responsible Metrics have done a survey of UK institutions and is reporting the findings on 8 February in London. DORA has upped its game and appointed a champion to promote their work and they seem to be regularly retweeting messages that remind us all of their take on what it means to do metrics responsibly. There are also frequent twitter conversations about the impact of metrics in the up-coming REF. In all of this I see an increasing amount of ‘bad metrics’ bandwagon-hopping. The anti-Journal Impact Factor (JIF) wagon is now full and its big sister, the “metrics are ruining science” wagon, is taking on supporters at a heady pace.
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing.
It’s not a bad thing, this increased awareness of responsible metrics; all these conversations. I’m responsible metrics’ biggest supporter and a regular slide in my slide-deck shouts ‘metrics can kill people!’. So why am I writing a blog post that claims that there is no such thing as a bad metric? Surely these things can kill people? Well, yes, but guns can also kill people, they just can’t do so unless they’re in the hands of a human. Similarly, metrics aren’t bad in and of themselves, it’s what we do with them that can make them dangerous.
Adequacy of the indicator for the object that it measures
Sensitivity to the intrinsic inertia of the object being measured
Homogeneity of the dimensions of the indicator.
So, you might have an indicator such as ‘shoe size’, where folks with feet of a certain length get assigned a certain shoe size indicator. No problem there – it’s adequate (length of foot consistently maps on to shoe size); it’s sensitive to the thing it measures (foot grows, shoe size increases accordingly), and it’s homogenous (one characteristic – length, leads to one indicator – shoe size). However, in research evaluation we struggle on all of these counts. Because the thing we really want to measure, this elusive, multi-faceted “research quality” thing, doesn’t have any adequate, sensitive and homogeneous indicators. We need to measure the immeasurable. So we end up making false assumptions about the meanings of our indicators, and then make bad decisions based on those false assumptions. In all of this, it is not the metric that’s at fault, it’s us.
In my view, the JIF is the biggest scapegoat of the Responsible Metrics agenda. The JIF is just the average number of cites per paper for a journal over two years. That’s it. A simple calculation. And as an indicator of the communication effectiveness of a journal for collection development purposes (the reason it was introduced) it served us well. It’s just been misused as an indicator of the quality of individual academics and individual papers. It wasn’t designed for that. This is misuse of a metric, not a bad metric. (Although recent work has suggested that it’s not that bad an indicator for the latter anyway, but that’s not my purpose here). If the JIF is a bad metric, so is Elsevier’s CiteScore which is based on EXACTLY the same principle but uses a three-year time window not two, a slightly different set of document types and journals, and makes itself freely available.
If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
I understand why DORA trumpets the misuse of JIFs; it is rife and there are less imperfect tools for the job. But there are also other metrics that DORA doesn’t get in a flap about – like the individual h-index – which are subject to the same amount of misuse, but are actually more damaging. The individual h-index disadvantages certain demographics more than others (women, early-career researchers, anyone with non-standard career lengths); at least the JIF mis-serves everyone equally. And whilst we’re at it peer review can be an equally inadequate research evaluation tool (which, ironically, metrics have proven). So if we’re to be really fair we should be campaigning for responsible peer review with as much vigour as our calls for responsible metrics.
Bumper stickers by Paul van der Werf (CC-BY)
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge can lead to a bumper sticker culture ( “I HEART DORA” anyone? “Ban the JIF”?) which could move us away from, rather than towards, the responsible use of metrics. These concepts are easy to grasp hold of, but they mask a far more complex and challenging set of research evaluation problems that lie beneath. The responsible use of metrics is about more than the avoidance of certain indicators, or signing DORA, or even developing your own bespoke Responsible Metrics policy (as I’ve said before this is certainly easier said than done).
The responsible use of metrics requires responsible scientometricians. People who understand that there is really no such thing as a bad metric, but it is very possible to misuse them. People with a deeper level of understanding about what we are trying to measure, what the systemic effects of this might be, what indicators are available, what their limitations are, where they are appropriate, how they can best triangulate them with peer review. We have good guidance on this in the form of the Leiden Manifesto, the Metric Tide and DORA. However, these are the starting points of often painful responsible metric journeys, not easy-ride bandwagons to be jumped on. If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
Let’s get off the ‘metric-shaming’ bandwagons, deepen our understanding and press on with the hard work of responsible research evaluation.
Elizabeth Gadd is the Research Policy Manager (Publications) at Loughborough University. She has a background in Libraries and Scholarly Communication research. She is the co-founder of the Lis-Bibliometrics Forum and is the ARMA Metrics Special Interest Group Champion
We have a series of externally-facilitated REF outputs workshops scheduled to take place in early 2018 as part of the RKE Development Framework. Each session is led by REF 2014 sub-panel member who will explain how the panel interpreted and applied the REF 2014 guidance when assessing the quality of outputs. The workshops are open to all academic staff to attend.
The expected learning outcomes from the workshops are for attendees to:
Gain insight into how the REF panels applied the REF criteria when considering the significance, rigour and originality of outputs;
Understand the differences between outputs scored 4*, 3*, 2*, 1* and Unclassified;
Gain insight into what is meant by ‘world leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’;
Understand how scores borderline cases were agreed and what the tipping points were to either break the ceiling into the higher star level or to hold an output back a star level;
Understand how panels used other information such as metrics, markers of journal quality or prior knowledge in output assessment;
Gain insight into how future outputs could be strengthened for REF20
Workshops scheduled so far are:
UOA 2/3 – Prof Dame Jill Macleod Clark – 15 March 2018
The fees and funding discussions continue with some interesting developments this week.
Firstly, there was a written response by the Minister -responding to the Resolution of the House on 13th September 2017 on tuition fees (the non-binding one that was essentially passed unanimously because no Conservative MPs attended). The statement included a few important points and some hints:
Maximum grants and loans for living and other costs will be increased by forecast inflation (3.2%) in 2018/19.
For the first time, students starting part-time degree level courses from 1 August 2018 onwards will qualify for loans for living costs.
I expect to lay regulations implementing changes to student finance for undergraduates and postgraduates for 2018/19 early in 2018. These regulations will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
The Department of Health will be making a separate announcement on changes to student finance for postgraduate healthcare students and dental hygiene and dental therapy students in 2018/19.
Application Deadline: Wednesday 12 September 2018 (17.00 UK Time)
The deadline for expressions of interest for Leaders for UOAs 2 and 3 has been extended to Monday 16 April at 5pm. EoIs should be sent by email to 
BU students’ publishing success
BU presentation at the University of Bristol
Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory academics – would you like to get more involved in preparing our next REF submission?
UKCGE Recognised Research Supervision Programme: Final Deadline Reminder
The significance of Rights and Protocols in Disaster Response
Celebrate World Wellbeing Week This June
Horizon Europe Cluster 3 (Civil Security for Society) 2026 Calls Now Open
MSCA Doctoral Networks 2026 Call Information Webinar
ESRC Festival of Social Science 2026: Application Deadline Extended to Thursday 25 June 2026
Reminder: Register for the ESRC Festival of Social Science 2026 Information Session
ECR Funding Open Call: Research Culture & Community Grant – Apply now
ERC Advanced Grant 2025 Webinar
Update on UKRO services
European research project exploring use of ‘virtual twins’ to better manage metabolic associated fatty liver disease