Category / Research assessment

January 9, 2017

HEFCE consultation on REF2021 – what you need to know

It hardly feels like the dust has settled on the results from the last Research Excellence Framework, yet here we are again – almost half way through another research assessment cycle with HEFCE proposing potential changes to the next exercise. It feels like I’ve been transported back to 2009 when HEFCE were running bibliometrics and impact pilots to inform REF2014. I have to remind myself that it is in fact 2017 and things have moved on. We are now talking about REF2021 (how time flies!) and HEFCE have launched a consultation on how this exercise might work. Whilst citations and impact are still on the agenda for discussion, they are joined by other substantial changes that, if adopted, will transform the shape and potentially outcome of the next exercise.

The proposed changes have been informed by Lord Stern’s independent review of the REF which was published last July. This made 12 recommendations on how the next REF could be strengthened, whilst reducing the bureaucracy and cost of running the exercise (read Jane Forster’s overview of the recommendations – Stern review of the REF: what next?). These recommendations have now been reviewed by the four UK HE funding bodies and, prior to Christmas, HEFCE published proposals to amend the REF to incorporate the recommendations. HEFCE’s proposals are now open for consultation with the sector.

The document itself is fairly lengthy and dense, and over 40 questions are put forward for consideration. The key proposals are:

All research-active staff to be submitted
The decoupling of staff from outputs
Outputs will no longer be portable across institutions
All outputs must be available in open access form (with some exceptions)
Impact will have a broader definition
Institutional environment narratives and case studies to be submitted

There are some excellent summaries available online, many of which provide thoughts on what the proposals could mean in practice. The following summaries are particularly informative and worth reading: HEFCE launches consultation on REF2021, Soft Stern or Hard Stern and Implementing REF2021.

BU will be submitting an institutional response to the consultation before the deadline of 17^th March. As these are significant proposals, all staff will have the opportunity to contribute to the response. As a number of the key questions would benefit from a discipline-level response, UoA teams (UoA leaders, impact champions and output champions) are calling meetings within Faculties to hold discussions related to their own UoA. These will take place over the next month or so. Contact a member of your UoA team for further information. Staff not based in Faculties are also invited to comment on the proposals and can do so via their Director/Head of Professional Service.

The are various REF-focused conferences and events taking place over the next few months, organised by HEFCE, ARMA, etc. Interesting news from these will be posted to the Research Blog. HEFCE are anticipating significant sector-wide engagement with the proposals and have committed to reading all feedback received. It is anticipated that, following the consultation, the initial decisions regarding the shape of REF2021 will be published in summer 2017.

December 14, 2016

Addressing BREXIT at Humboldt University in Germany

BU research, conferences, EU, Global engagement, Research assessment, Research communication, Uncategorized lmiles

Professor Lee Miles was invited as the Professor of Crisis and Disaster Management to give an address to the Centre for British Studies at Humboldt University in Berlin (12 December 2016) – one of Germany’s most prestigious universities.

Lee’s lecture was entitled ‘A (Dif)Fusion Perspective on BREXIT Crisis Management: Reflections on a single market outside the Single Market?’. During the lecture, Lee examined the implications of the UK vote in 2016 to leave the European Union from a crisis management’s point of view, and as a process of ‘crisis alleviation’. Lee also combined these ideas with work on fusion theory in European Integration for which he is widely associated. He outlined the challenges of UK withdrawal from the European Union and considered a number of scenarios from the perspective of fusion/diffusion if the main terms of reference focus on being outside the Single European Market. Lee spoke to a packed audience and the address was very well received.

Lee Addressing the Centre for British Studies

Lee At Humboldt

December 11, 2016

Attention: All RCUK PIs and Students!

Awarded & submitted bids, Post-award, Publishing, Research assessment sastringer

The next Researchfish submission period will run in February/March 2017. The key dates and policies for the 2017 exercise are detailed below…

Next Submission Period dates

PIs will need to log on to researchfish® and submit a return between the 6 February and 4pm on 16 March 2017 to confirm that their outcomes information is accurate and complete at that time. Students will once again be asked to submit their outcomes then too. It is important to note that this time there will not be a blanket extension given to those who don’t submit by the deadline.

Studentships outcomes collection

The last Submission Period was the first time that all RCUK-funded Students were asked provide research outcomes from their Studentship awards. After considering the information gathered and the feedback received, RCUK has decided in future only students who are in the third or later year of their studies need to submit their outcomes. For the 2017 submission period this means students whose awards started on or before the 5 February 2015.

Sanctions

As was the case after the 2016 Submission Period, non-compliant PIs will lose eligibility to be either a PI or Co-I on further awards from any Research Council and any current awards will have their payments withheld until such time as the PI becomes compliant. Sanctions will not apply to students who do not comply with the request to submit their outcomes.

December 9, 2016

HE policy update

BU research, EU, Fusion, Global engagement, Impact, international, policy, Public engagement, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research news jforster

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and Research Excellence Framework (REF)

The Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Vinney, has a new blog on the HEPI (the Higher Education policy Institute) website on research and teaching and how REF and the TEF work together, with some proposals for change in how the REF is implemented in 2021, and views on subject level TEF, which is proposed for year 3 (informal consultation has already started).

And on Thursday afternoon the HEFCE REF consultation on the implementation of the REF 2021 was published – with a response date of 17 March 2017. The proposals incorporate the principles from the Stern Review. You can read the background on our BU Policy & Public Affairs page on the Stern Review. Wonkhe have a useful summary of the proposals and David Sweeney from HEFCE has written for Wonkhe on why the sector needs to engage in the consultation – contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you would like to be involved in preparing our response, we will be working on this with RKEO.

Wonkhe have published an interesting analysis of the TEF metrics and benchmarking and how they work complete with data about the current likely outcomes of the TEF. Wonkhe report that Professor John Raftery, vice chancellor for London Metropolitan University, has written for the Telegraph on the TEF, calling for the metrics to include a measure for number of qualified teachers in universities – something BU also called for in our TEF consultation response.

An expert in dyslexia has written a blog for Wonkhe on potential benefits for disabled students as a result of the implementation of the Teaching Excellence Framework with its focus on “split” metrics.

Widening Participation and Social Mobility

A Social Mobility Commission report has been issued looking at social and ethnic inequalities in post-16 choices. It examines social gender and ethnic inequalities.

The report found significant differences between poorer children and wealthier children living in the same neighbourhood with the same GCSE results. This Government press release states that “bright children from poorer backgrounds are far less likely to go to university or study A levels that could get them into top universities than their wealthier counterparts – even if they live in the same neighbourhood and achieve similar results at GCSE.”

Some other key findings include:

24% of children eligible for free school meals attend higher education compared to 42% of children from more privileged backgrounds.
Poorer children are also twice as likely to drop out of education at 16 and are more than half as likely to study A levels that could get them into a top university.
around a quarter of the progression gap – the different choices made by children after leaving school – is purely down to social background.
White British students are far less likely to go to university than ethnic minority students – Indian (72%), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (53%), Black (57%) and White British (36%). Participation differences between White British and other ethnic groups who live in the same neighbourhood and with the same GCSE attainment are even more pronounced.
White British students are more likely to drop out of post-16 education than ethnic minority students – Indian (3%), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (8%), Black (7%) and White British (10%).
Female pupils are 8% more likely to attend university than males (44% versus 36%). However, although female participation rates at top selective universities are slightly higher (10% versus 9% for boys); they are less likely to attend these universities than a boy from the same neighbourhood with the same GCSEs.

Education Select Committee Inquiry into the effect of Brexit on staff and students in HE

Our evidence has been published as part of 190 submissions to the committee. You can read the submissions through links here (click on “view all”).

Neil Carmichael MP, Chair of the Education Committee, said: “This written evidence from university leaders, academics, businesses and others highlights the degree of concern about the fate of UK universities post-Brexit. The evidence raises a variety of issues relating to freedom of movement, including the prospects for recruiting EU students post-Brexit and the future rights of EU staff to live and work in the UK. Concerns are also raised about how to maintain the UK as an attractive destination for EU and international students, about the financial viability of universities, and the need to ensure Britain can continue to compete on the international stage as a provider of world-class university education.

In our inquiry, we are determined to examine the opportunities for higher education post-Brexit and consider what the Government’s priorities should be for the sector going into the negotiations with the EU. It’s crucial that we don’t allow Brexit to become a catastrophe for our university sector. We look forward to testing the evidence and questioning university leaders, academics, students, unions, and Ministers in our public evidence sessions in the New Year.”

Higher Education and Research Bill reaches the Lords

The HE and Research Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 7th December and has now moved to the Lords Committee stage. Research Professional have a summary. You can read the full debate in Hansard here and a summary by DODs here.

At the committee stage amendments will be tabled and discussed in great detail. The Bill has only had government amendments approved so far, and there has been a lot of criticism (of and by everyone) of the level of scrutiny so far – with time being severely limited in committee and third reading stage in the Commons, with all opposition amendments rejected. But as you saw from my update on the third reading in the Commons, the debate there centred largely on Brexit, student visas, TEF, and loans (none of which are actually covered by the Bill), with very little actual focus on the bill itself.

It is expected that the Lords, while they will discuss those issues as well, will also focus on the bill itself, particularly on the changes to the research landscape, but also on degree awarding powers and other aspects of autonomy – and that was reflected in the debate, as well as discussions about the TEF.

UUK have update their briefing note to focus on what they want from the Lords – read it here – it lists the same 7 issues as for the House of Commons third reading, so it is interesting to see that they have flagged three in particular in a joint letter to the Guardian with GuildHE, calling for the Lords to amend the Bill to address probationary degree awarding powers, to stop the OfS validating degrees and to stop the government interfering in academic standards and course funding.

It has long been expected that fees, loans and linking TEF to fees, will be a feature of the Lords debate – Wes Streeting wrote about student loan repayment yesterday: Wes Streeting MP: Labour Lords will fight student loan repayment ‘scandal’.

UCU Survey: Inaccuracies in predicted grades

The UCU undergraduate application and admission survey tackles the disparity between predicted and actual A level grades achieved. It reports only 16% of predictions (2013-15) were correct with the majority of students predicted higher than they achieve, identifies differences in under/over prediction depending on the type of institution, and notes differences surrounding disadvantaged students. The Guardian quotes Sally Hunt (UCU) “this report is a damning indictment of a broken system” and references the underpinning study by Dr Gill Wyness (University College London Institute of Education) “it seems highly inefficient to continue with a system in which life-changing decisions are made, and scarce university places are allocated, on the basis of inaccurate information”. THE pick up on the socio-economic angle of high achieving disadvantaged students who are under predicted and state it may be skewing their access to highly selective universities. UCU are calling for an overhaul and recommend a post-qualification admissions system. .

Something a bit different

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has decided to create an open opportunity for the science community and the wider public to suggest science and technology areas for scrutiny. Inquiry: My Science Inquiry

Inquiry proposals will be considered on the basis of merit, and the Committee would be interested to receive proposals for work in areas that might otherwise escape its attention. Proposals should outline in less than 200 words the nature of the issue that the Committee should explore, why it deserves attention, and how Government policy in this area could be developed or improved. A selection of the proposals will be shortlisted for an opportunity to give a 10-minute pitch to the Committee in person at a public ‘Dragons’ Den’-style session to be held in the New Year. Please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you are interested in contributing – the deadline is 4^th January 2017.

December 5, 2016

How to Write a 4* Article

BRIAN, BU research, Guidance, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Training, writing sastringer

Prof. Mark Reed

A fortnight ago Prof Mark Reed, Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation at Newcastle University and the man behind Fast Track Impact, tweeted some thoughts on how to write a 4* paper for the REF. He went on to explain his thinking in more detail in a guest post on the Research Fundementals blog, the post is published here with the authors permission.

_____________
How do you write a 4* paper for the Research Excellence Framework (REF)? It is a question I’ve asked myself with some urgency since the Stern Review shredded my REF submission by not allowing me to bring my papers with me this year to my new position at Newcastle University.

Obviously the answer is going to differ depending on your discipline, but I think there are a few simple things that everyone can do to maximize their chances of getting a top graded research output.

I’m going to start with the assumption that you’ve actually done original, significant and rigorous work – if you haven’t then there is no point in reading any further. However, as I am increasingly asked to pre-review papers for colleagues across a range of disciplines, I am seeing examples of people who write up work as a 2* or 3* paper that has the potential to get a better score. I should point out that I believe that there is an important role for 1* and 2* papers, and that I regularly write these on purpose to address a problem of national significance and frame it for the specific, narrow audience that is likely to be able to benefit most from my work. However, whether I like it or not, as a Professor in a research-intensive University, there is an expectation that I will be submitted as a 4* researcher, which means I need a few 4* papers as well.

You can see some more detailed thoughts on what I think makes 4* for different types of paper in this Tweet:

How to write a 4* paper for #REF pic.twitter.com/7P8fKw1pfU

— Mark Reed (@profmarkreed) November 23, 2016

As you’ll see from the discussion under that tweet though, my more detailed thoughts probably only apply to Units of Assessment across panels A-C, and probably isn’t relevant to the arts and humanities.

Having said this, I think there are a number of things we can all do to maximize the chances of our work being viewed favourably by REF panelists.

Write to the criteria: when I was learning to drive, my instructor told me that in the test I should make sure I moved my head when I was looking in the rear view mirror, to make sure the examiner noticed I was using my mirrors. We’re all used to writing to the criteria of funding calls, and in fact we are all perfectly used to writing papers to the criteria of our target journals. In the last REF, research outputs were judged against three criteria: originality, significance and rigour. Whatever the interpretation of these criteria in your discipline, have you made it explicit to REF panelists reading your work exactly what is original, and why it is so original? Have you explained and effectively justified the significance of your work? And have you included evidence that your methods, analysis and interpretation is rigorous, even if you have to use supplementary material to include extra detail about your methods and data to get around journal word limits?

Get REF feedback before you submit your work for publication: find out who is going to be reviewing research outputs for REF internally within your Unit of Assessment at your institution and ask them to review your work before you submit it. They may be able to make recommendations about how you might improve the paper in light of the REF criteria. Sometimes a little bit of extra work on the framing of your research in relation to wider contexts and issues can help articulate the significance of your work, and with additional reading and thinking, you may be able to position your work more effectively in relation to previous work to demonstrate its originality more clearly. Adding a few extra details to your methods and results may re-assure readers and reviewers that your approach is indeed rigorous. This is not just about doing world-leading research; it is about demonstrating to the world that your work is indeed world-leading. For me, these criteria are nothing new and are worth paying attention to, whether or not we are interested in REF. Meeting these three criteria will increase the chances that you get through peer-review and will increase the likelihood that your work gets cited.

Analyse and discuss good practice in your own area: the only way to really “get your eye in” for REF is to actually look at examples of good and poor practice in your own area. Below, I’ve described how you can design an exercise to do this with your colleagues. You can do it yourself and learn a lot, but from my own experience, you learn a lot more by doing this as a discussion exercise with colleagues who work in your area. If you can, take notes from your discussion and try and distill some of the key lessons, so you can learn collectively as a group and more effectively review and support each others’ work.

How to organize a discussion to work out what makes a 4* paper in your area:

Identify top scoring institutions for your Unit of Assessment (UOA): download the REF2014 results, filter for your UOA (columns E or F), then filter so it only shows you the outputs (column J), and then filter for 4* (column L), showing only the institutions from your UOA that had the highest percentage of 4* outputs. Now for those institutions, look across the table (columns L-P) to see which has the highest proportion of outputs at either 3* or 4*. For example, an institution may have 80% of its outputs graded at 4* and 15% graded at 3*, meaning that 95% of its outputs were graded at 3-4*
Download a selection of papers from the top scoring institutions: go to your UOA on the REF website, find and click on the institutions you’ve identified in step 1, under “view submission data”, click on “research outputs”, copy and paste output titles into Google Scholar (or your search engine of choice) and download the articles. You may want to select outputs randomly, or you may want to go through more selectively, identifying outputs that are close to the areas your group specialize in
Repeat for low scoring institutions so you can compare and contrast high and low scoring outputs
Discuss examples: print copies of the high and low scoring outputs, labeled clearly, and in your next UOA meeting, let everyone choose a high and a low-scoring example. Given them 10-15 minutes to quickly read the outputs (focusing on title, abstract, introduction, figures and conclusions so you’re not there all day) and then ask the group (or small groups if there are many of you) to discuss the key factors that they think distinguish between high and low scoring outputs. Get your group(s) to distill the key principles that they think are most useful and disseminate these more widely to the group, so that anyone who wasn’t present can benefit.

It would be great if I could tell you that these are my “three easy ways to get a 4* paper” but doing work that is genuinely original, significant and rigorous is far from easy. If you have done work that is of the highest quality though, I hope that the ideas I’ve suggested here will help you get the credit you deserve for the great research you’ve done.

November 24, 2016

Calling all RCUK PIs and Students!

Awarded & submitted bids, Impact, Post-award, Publishing, Research assessment sastringer

We’ve been informed by RCUK that the next Researchfish submission period will run in February/March 2017. The key dates and policies for the 2017 exercise are detailed below…

Next Submission Period dates

Studentships outcomes collection

Sanctions

October 11, 2016

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

Guidance, Research assessment Fiona Knight

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 2015 and 31 July 2016.

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 let your contact (see below) know the event name and date, whether it was free or chargeable, the estimated number of attendees, and an estimate of how much academic time was spent preparing for (but not delivering) the event:

SciTech – Kelly Deacon-Smith
FoM – Rob Hydon
HSS – Tanya Richardson
FMC – Mark Brocklehurst
Professional Service – Fiona Knight (RKEO)

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.

September 14, 2016

FHSS seminar Prof McKie

BU research, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research Training, Women's Academic Network, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Prof. Linda McKie who is professor of Sociology at Durham University gave an excellent paper today in FHSS on Revitalising Spatial and Temporal Frameworks in the Analysis of Unpaid Care and Paid Work. Her paper highlighted that published data have documented the persistence of the gender pay gap for all women with evidence of a deepening gap following maternity leave. These data generated numerous analyses on segregation and discrimination in education and working life and the many ways in which unpaid care for children, family members and elders remains a dominant factor in everyday gendered inequalities. Often little comment was made on women’s crucial role in reproducing generations many of whom will fund future pensions and services through their taxation. These intergenerational reciprocities are generally ignored in favour of the immediate time considerations for employers, workers and families with the need to generate profit, or income and resources for household or business survival.

In her seminar Prof. McKie revisited the analytical frameworks of ‘caringscapes’ and ‘carescapes’. In earlier work, it was asserted that both offer analytical potential to enhance analyses of the temporal and spatial dynamics of caring and working over the lifecourse in different places. Caring, critical to human flourishing and evident in many aspects of women’s lives, is captured in ‘caringscapes’. The framework of ‘carescapes’ explores the relationship between policies and services as determined by employers, the state and capital. Both frameworks are informed by feminist theorising and spatial and temporal perspectives on identifying and analysing how women perceive, engage with, and reflect on, the demands and pleasures of combining informal caring and paid work.

Yesterday Prof. McKie led a well-attended workshop for FHSS staff on preparing for the REF. She offered insight into various REF processes as well advise on strategic planning and the importance of networking. Prof. McKie has been a sub-panel member of the Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF) Sub-panel 23: Sociology for the period 2010-2014.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

August 12, 2016

100+ Nepal health publications

BRIAN, BU research, Global engagement, international, PG research, Publishing, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research news, Training, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

At a television interview this morning in Kathmandu I was asked how many papers I had published on health and health-related issues in Nepal. I told the interviewer from BTV Business that it was around 90 to a hundred. Coming back to Green Tara Nepal office I decide to update the list of papers on Nepal to make sure I had not lied too much on TV.

Adding up the papers, editorials and, to a lesser extent, book chapters I was pleasantly surprised that there were 25 on maternity care & midwifery, 18 on sexual & reproductive health, nine on infectious diseases, five on non-communicable diseases, six on nutrition & child health, three on mental health, two on migration and a further mixture of 38 on topics such as health systems, research methods, or health & education capacity building. If I have not double counted any of the papers that a grand total of 106. Most are co-authored with BU Visiting Faculty Prof.Padam Simkhada (from Liverpool John Moores University), many with PhD students conducting projects in Nepal and, more recently with BU post-doctoral fellow Dr. Pramod Regmi.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Reference (by topic)

Maternal & Neonatal Health & Midwifery

Simkhada, B, van Teijlingen E, Porter, M, Simkhada, P. (2006) Major problems and key issues in Maternal Health in Nepal (Review article), Kathmandu University Medical Journal, 4(2): 261-266. kumj.com.np/ftp/issue/14/Major-problems-and-key-issues-in-maternal-health-in-Nepal.pdf
Dhakal, S., Chapman, G., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Stephens J., Raja, A.E. (2007) Utilisation of postnatal care among rural women in Nepal, BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 7(19). Web: biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2393-7-19.pdf
Simkhada, B., van Teijlingen E., Porter, M., Simkhada, P. (2008) Factors affecting the utilisation of antenatal care in developing countries: a systematic review of the literature, Journal of Advanced Nursing 61(3): 244-260.
Teijlingen van, E., Simkhada, P., Ireland, J. (2010) Lessons learnt from undertaking maternity-care research in developing countries. Evidence-based Midwifery 8(1): 12-6.
Simkhada, B., Porter, M., van Teijlingen, E. (2010) The role of mothers-in-law in antenatal care decision-making in Nepal: A qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 10(34) biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2393-10-34.pdf
Baral, Y.R, Lyons, K., Skinner, J, van Teijlingen, E. (2010) Determinants of skilled birth attendants for delivery in Nepal Kathmandu University Medical Journal 8(3): 325-332. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/31/325-332.pdf
.Acharya, D.R., Bell, J., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Regmi, P.R. (2010) Women’s autonomy in decision-making for health care: A demographic study in Nepal. Reproductive Health 9(15) reproductive-health-journal.com/content/pdf/1742-4755-7-15.pdf
Dhakal, S., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Dhakal, K.B., Stephens J., Chapman, G., Raja, A.E. (2011) Antenatal care among women in rural Nepal: A community-based study. Online Journal of Rural Nursing & Health Care 11 (2): 76-87. http://rnojournal.binghamton.edu/index.php/RNO/article/view/20/17
Dhakal, S., van Teijlingen, E., Raja, A.E., Dhakal, K.B. (2011) Skilled care at birth among rural women in Nepal: practice & challenges Journal of Health, Population & Nutrition 29 (4): 371-378.
Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen, E, Sharma, G., Simkhada, B., Townend, J. (2012) User costs and informal payments for care in the largest maternity hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal, Health Science Journal 6(2): 317-334. hsj.gr/volume6/issue2/6212.pdf
Baral, Y.R, Lyons, K., Skinner, J, van Teijlingen, E.R. (2012) Maternal health services utilisation in Nepal: Progress in the new millennium? Health Science Journal 6(4): 618-633. hsj.gr/volume6/issue4/644.pdf
Joshi, R., Sharma, S., van Teijlingen, E. (2013) Improving neonatal health in Nepal: Major challenges to achieving Millennium Development Goal 4, Health Science Journal 7(3): 247-257. http://www.hsj.gr/index.files/Page1421.htm
Bogren, M., van Teijlingen, E., Berg. M. (2013) Where midwives are not yet recognised: A feasibility study of professional midwives in Nepal, Midwifery 29(10): 1103-1109.
Simkhada, B., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Porter, A.M., Wasti, S.P. (2014) Why do costs act as a barrier in maternity care for some, but not all women? A qualitative study in rural Nepal, International Journal of Social Economics 41 (8): 705-713.
Bogren, M.U., Bajracharya, K., Berg, M., Erlandsson, K., Ireland, J., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2013) Nepal needs midwifery, Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (JMMIHS) 1(2): 41-44. nepjol.info/index.php/JMMIHS/article/view/9907/8082
Simkhada, B., Sharma, A., van Teijlingen, E., Silwal, R.C., Simkhada, P. (2015) Exploring Maternal Mortality Reduction. In: Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 95-121.
Simkhada, B., Porter, M., Teijlingen van E. (2011) My mother-in-law tells me what to do, Midwives (official magazine of the Royal College of Midwives) issue 4: 34-36.
Teijlingen van, E., Simkhada, B., Simkhada, P. (2013) Midwifery and maternity care in Nepal: the vital link, The Practising Midwife 16 (10): 24-27.
Milne, L., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Ireland, J. (2015) Staff perspectives of barriers to women accessing birthing services in Nepal: A qualitative study BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 15:142 biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/15/142
Sathian, B De A, Simkhada P, Malla K, Ghosh A, Basnet S, Roy B (2015) Time Trend of Pneumonia in under Five Children of Nepal. American Journal of Public Health Research 3 (4A), 27-30
Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Angell, C. (2016) Birthing centres in Nepal: Recent developments, obstacles and opportunities, Journal of Asian Midwives 3(1): 18-30. http://ecommons.aku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=jam
Mahato, P.K., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Angell, C., Sathian, B. (2015) Birthing centre infrastructure in Nepal post 2015 earthquake. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 5(4): 518-519. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/14260/11579
Sharma, S., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Angell, C., Simkhada, P. (2016) Dirty and 40 days in the wilderness: Eliciting childbirth and postnatal cultural practices and beliefs in Nepal BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 16: 147 https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-016-0938-4
Sharma, S., van Teijlingen, E., Belizán, J.M., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Sicuri, E. (2016) Measuring What Works: An impact evaluation of women’s groups on maternal health uptake in rural Nepal, PLOS One 11(5): e0155144 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0155144
Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Sharma, S., Mahato, P. (2016) Sustainable Development Goals: relevance to maternal & child health in Nepal. Health Prospect 15(1):9-10. www.healthprospect.org/archives/15/1/3.pdf

Sexual & Reproductive Health

Simkhada, P., Bhatta, P., van Teijlingen E. (2006) Importance of piloting a questionnaire on sexual health research (Letter), Wilderness & Environmental Medical Journal, 17(4): 295-296. wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=017&issue=04&page=0295#Ref
Simkhada, P., Bhatta, P., van Teijlingen E., Regmi, P. (2010) Sexual health knowledge, sexual relationships and condom use among male trekking guides in Nepal. Culture, Health & Sexuality 12(1): 45-58.
Acharya, D.R., van Teijlingen E.R., Simkhada P. (2009) Opportunities & challenges in school-based sex & sexual health education in Nepal. Kathmandu University Medical Journal 7(4): 445-453 Web: http://kumj.com.np/ftp/issue/28/445-453.pdf
Regmi P., Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen E. (2010) “Boys Remain Prestigious, Girls Become Prostitutes”: Socio-Cultural Context of Relationships & Sex among Young People in Nepal, Global Journal of Health Science 2(1): 60-72. http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/viewFile/3951/4542
Simkhada, B., Porter, M., van Teijlingen, E. (2010) The role of mothers-in-law in antenatal care decision-making in Nepal: A qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 10(34) biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2393-10-34.pdf
Baral, Y.R, Lyons, K., Skinner, J, van Teijlingen, E. (2010) Determinants of skilled birth attendants for delivery in Nepal Kathmandu University Medical Journal 8(3): 325-332. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/31/325-332.pdf
Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E. (2010) Dating and Sex among Emerging Adults in Nepal. Journal of Adolescence Research 26 (6): 675-700.
Ghimire, L., van Teijlingen E. (2009) Barriers to utilisation of sexual health services by female sex workers in Nepal, Global Journal of Health Science 1(1): 12-22 web address: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/viewFile/93/1062
Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen (2008) Sexual and reproductive health status among young people in Nepal: opportunities & barriers for sexual health education & service utilisation, Kathmandu University Medical Journal 6(2): 248-256. http://kumj.com.np/ftp/issue/22/248-256.pdf
Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada, P., Acharya, D. (2010) Barriers to sexual health services for young people in Nepal. Journal of Health Population & Nutrition 28: 619-627.
Acharya, D.R., Bhattarai, R, Poobalan, A, van Teijlingen E.R., Chapman, G. (2010) Factors associated with teenage pregnancy in South Asia: a systematic review. Health Sciences Journal 4 (1): 3-14. web address: hsj.gr/volume4/issue1/402.pdf
Ghimire, L., Smith, W.C.S., van Teijlingen, E. (2011) Utilisation of sexual health services by female sex workers in Nepal, BMC Health Services Research 11: 79 biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6963-11-79.pdf
Ghimire, L., Smith, W.C.S., van Teijlingen, E., Dahal, R., Luitel, N.P. (2011) Reasons for non- use of condoms and self-efficacy among female sex workers: A qualitative study in Nepal, BMC Women’s Health 11: 42 biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6874-11-42.pdf
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Acharya, D.R., Schildbach, E., Silwa, P.R., Shrestha, J., Pandey, P.L. (2012) Sexual and reproductive health of adolescents in rural Nepal: Knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Nepal Population Journal 17(16): 3-10.
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P., Bhatta, P., Ingham, R., Stone, N. (2015) Sexual health knowledge and risky sexual behaviour of Nepalese trekking guides. Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences 1(4): 35-42
Acharya, D.R., Regmi, P., Simkhada, P. van Teijlingen, E. (2015) Modernisation and Changes in Attitudes towards Sex and Relationships in Young People. In: Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 63-94.
Simkhada, P.P., Sharma, A., van Teijlingen, E.R., Beanland, R,L. (2016) Factors influencing sexual behaviour between tourists and tourism employees: A systematic review. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 6(1): 530-538. nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/14735/11952
Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) Importance of Health and Social Care Research into Gender and Sexual Minority Populations in Nepal. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 27(8): 806-808. http://aph.sagepub.com/content/27/8/806.full

Infectious diseases

Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E. (2009) Antiretroviral treatment programmes in Nepal: Problems and barriers. Kathmandu University Medical Journal 7(3): 306-314 web address: http://kumj.com.np/ftp/issue/27/306-314.pdf
Wasti, S.P., Randal, J., Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen, E. (2011) In what way do Nepalese cultural factors affect adherence to antiretroviral treatment in Nepal? Health Science Journal 5(1): 37-47.
Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen E., Simkhada, P., Randall, J., Baxter, S., Kirkpatrick, P., Vijay Singh Gc. (2012) Factors influencing adherence to antiretroviral treatment in Asian developing countries: a systematic review, Tropical Medicine & International Health 17(1): 71-81. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02888.x/pdf
Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P., Randall, J., van Teijlingen, E., Freeman, J. (2012) Factors influencing adherence to antiretroviral treatment in Nepal: a mixed-methods study. PLoS ONE 7(5): e35547. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035547. plosone.org/article/fetchArticle;jsessionid=9F031521BFD51A9FA385083CE75F8072?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0035547
Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2012) Ethical and Practical Challenges in Conducting Fieldwork on a Sensitive Topic (HIV) in Nepal, In: Loubere, N., Morgan, R., Kruckenberg, L., De Beukelaer, C. & Hernandez Montes De Oca, P. (eds.) RiDNET Practical Fieldwork Notes, Leeds: Researchers in Development Network (RiDNet), University of Leeds,Vol.1: 9.
Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P., Randall, J., van Teijlingen, E., Freeman, J. (2012) Barriers to & facilitators of antiretroviral therapy adherence in Nepal: a qualitative study. Journal of Health, Population & Nutrition 30(4): 410-419. jhpn.net/index.php/jhpn/article/view/1492/893
Devkota, S., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Rai, L.D. (2012) Media use for Health Promotion: Communicating Childhood Immunisation Messages to Parents. Journal of Health Promotion 4(1): 1-9.
Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) (2015) Socio-Cultural Aspects of HIV/AIDS. In: The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 47-62.
Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P, Randall, J., van Teijlingen E. (2009) Issues & Challenges of HIV/AIDS Prevention & Treatment Programme in Nepal, Global Journal of Health Science 1(2): 62-72. http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/viewFile/2460/3474

Non-Communicable Diseases

Adhikary, P., Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen E., Raja, A.E. (2008) Health and Lifestyle of Nepalese Migrants in the UK BMC International Health and Human Rights 8(6). Web address: biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/8/6.
Gyawali, B., Keeling, J., van Teijlingen, E., Dhakal. L., Aro, A.R. (2015) Cervical Cancer Screening: Ethical Consideration, Medicolegal & Bioethics 5: 1-6
Gyawali, B., Neupane, D., Sharma, R., Mishra, S.R., van Teijlingen, E., Kallestrup, P. (2015) Prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Nepal: Systematic review & meta-analysis from 2000 to 2014 Global Health Action 8: 29088 globalhealthaction.net/index.php/gha/article/view/29088/pdf_189
Sathian, B. , De, A. ,van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. , Banerjee, I. , Roy, B. , Supram, H. , Devkota, S. , E, R. (2015). Time Trend of the Suicide Incidence in India: a Statistical Modelling. American Journal of Public Health Research, 3(5A), 80-87. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajphr/3/5A/17/index.html
Regmi, P.R., Kurmi, O., Aryal, N., Pant, P.P., Banstola, A., Alloh, F., van Teijlingen, E., (2016) Diabetes prevention and management in South Asia: A call for action. International Journal of Food, Nutrition & Public Health (IJFNPH) 8(2): 107-116. http://www.wasd.org.uk/download/diabetes-prevention-and-management-in-south-asia-a-call-for-action/

Nutrition & Child Development

Singh, S., Rajendra Kumar, B., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E. (2007) Health status & health needs of the orphan children in Kathmandu, Nepal, Journal of Nepal Health Research Council 5(2): 39-48.
Singh, S., van Teijlingen E.R., Simkhada, P. (2007) Health status and health needs of the orphan children in Kathmandu, Nepal: The findings of a pilot study, Stupa: Journal of Health Sciences 3 (1&2): 44-54.
Devkota, S., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Rai, L.D. (2013) Childhood Immunisation in Nepal: Parents’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviour & implications for Health Policy. Health Science Journal 7(4):370-383.hsj.gr/volume7/issue4/743.pdf
Acharya, J., van Teijlingen, E., Murphy, J., Hind, M. (2015) Study of nutritional problems in preschool aged children in Kaski District in Nepal, Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Healthcare 1(2): 97-118. http://dspace.chitkara.edu.in/jspui/bitstream/1/560/1/12007_JMRH_Acharya.pdf
Subedi, Y.P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2016) Where is Nepal in the Demographic Transition within the wider context of the Nutrition Transition? Open Journal of Social Sciences 4: 155-166. http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JSS_2016052310320947.pdf
Simkhada, P., Sathian, B., Adhikari, S., van Teijlingen, E., Roy, B. (2015) Is early diagnose for Vitamin A deficiency better than the current supplementation programme of Nepal? Journal of Biomedical Sciences 2(4):28-30. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/JBS/index

Mental Health

Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Winter, R.C., Fanning, C., Dhungel, A., Marahatta S.B. (2015) Why are so many Nepali women killing themselves? A review of key issues Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences 4(1): 43-49.
Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen, E., Marahatta, S.B. (2015) Mental health services in Nepal: Is it too late? Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences 1(4): 1-2.
van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Devkota, B., Fanning, P., Ireland, J., Simkhada, B., Sherchan, L., Silwal, R.C., Pradhan, S., Maharjan, S.K., Maharjan, R.K. (2015) Mental health issues in pregnant women in Nepal. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 5(3): 499-501. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/13607/11007

Migration / Occupational Health

Adhikary, P., Keen, S., van Teijlingen, E. (2011) Health Issues among Nepalese migrant workers in the Middle East. Health Science Journal 5: 169-175. hsj.gr/volume5/issue3/532.pdf
Sapkota, T., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2014) Nepalese health workers’ migration to the United Kingdom: A qualitative study. Health Science Journal 8(1): 57-74.

Other (including: health systems, research methods, capacity building)

Simkhada, P, Shyangdan, D, van Teijlingen E, Kadel, S, Stephen, J., Gurung, T. (2013) Women’s Knowledge & Attitude towards Disability in Rural Nepal. Disability & Rehabilitation 35(7): 606-613. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09638288.2012.702847
van Teijlingen, E.R., 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.
Kirkpatrick, P., van Teijlingen E. (2009) Lost in Translation: Reflecting on a Model to Reduce Translation and Interpretation Bias, The Open Nursing Journal, 3(8): 25-32 web address: bentham.org/open/tonursj/openaccess2.htm
van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Stephen, J., Simkhada, B., Woodes Rogers, S., Sharma, S. (2012) Making the best use of all resources: developing a health promotion intervention in rural Nepal. Health Renaissance 10(3): 229-235. healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/7141_24852_1_PB.pdf
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Pokharel, T., Devkota, B., Pathak, R.S. (2013) Research Methods Coverage in Medical & Health Science Curricula in Nepal, Nepal Journal Epidemiology 3(3): 253-258. nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/9185
van Teijlingen E.R., Simkhada, P.P. (2012) Ethical approval in developing countries is not optional, Journal of Medical Ethics 38: 428-430.
Devkota, B., van Teijlingen, E. (2012) “Why did they join?” Exploring the motivation of rebel health workers in Nepal Journal of Conflictology 3(1): 18-29. http://journals.uoc.edu/index.php/journal-of-conflictology/article/viewFile/vol3iss1-joc/vol3iss1-joc
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Devkota, B., Pathak, R.S., Sathian, B. (2014) Accessing research literature: A mixed-method study of academics in Higher Education Institutions in Nepal, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(4): 405-14. nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/11375
van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada, P., Wasti, P.P. (2015) Nepal is Changing: Modernisation and Diversity in Healthcare. In: Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 1-15.
Devkota, B., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) Exploring Rebel Health Services during the Maoist People’s War. In: Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 122-130.
Devkota, S., Maharjan, H.M., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) Media and Health. In: Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 169-184.
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P. (2015) Final thoughts. In: Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 222-228.
Devkota, B., van Teijlingen E. (2007) Basic health as peace dividend in post-conflict Nepal, Journal of HEPASS, 3(1): 21-23.
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2010) Higher education in Nepal: Several challenges ahead. Diaspora, 3 (1): 44-47.
Simkhada, P., Baral, Y.R., van Teijlingen E. (2010) Health & Medical Research: A Bibliometric Review, Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 22(4): 492-500 web address http://aph.sagepub.com/content/22/4/492.full.pdf+html
Devkota, B., van Teijlingen E. (2010) Demystifying the Maoist Barefoot Doctors of Nepal, Medicine, Conflict & Survival 26(2): 108-123.
Devkota, B., van Teijlingen, E. (2010) Understanding effects of armed conflict on health outcomes: the case of Nepal. Conflict & Health 4 (20) http://www.conflictandhealth.com/content/4/1/20
van Teijlingen E., Simkhada, B., Porter, M., Simkhada, P., Pitchforth, E., Bhatta, P. (2011) Qualitative research methods and its place in health research in Nepal, Kathmandu University Medical Journal 9(4): 301-305.
van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Stephen, J. (2013) Doing focus groups in the health field: Some lessons from Nepal, Health Prospect 12(1): 15-17. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/HPROSPECT/article/view/8722/7111
Neupane, D., van Teijlingen, E., Khanal, V., Mishra, S.R., Kallestrup, P. (2013) Involving Nepali academics in health research Health Prospect 12 (2): 21-23. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/HPROSPECT/article/view/9868/8056
van Teijlingen, E., Ireland, J., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Sathian, B. (2014) Finding the right title for your article: Advice for academic authors, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(1): 344-347.
Devkota, B., van Teijlingen E. (2009) Politicians in Apron: Case study of Rebel Health Services in Nepal, Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 21(4): 377-384.
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Kadel, S., Stephens, J., Sharma, S., Sharma, M. (2009) Reliability of National Data Sets: Evidence from a Detailed Small Area Study in Rural Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Asian Journal of Epidemiology 2(2): 44-48.
Bhatta, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Maybin, S. (2009) A questionnaire study of VSO volunteers: Health risk & problems encountered. Journal of Travel Medicine 16(5): 332-337.
P., Teijlingen van, E. (2012) Role of Individual Academics & International Universities in Health Research in Nepal (Guest Editorial), Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 2(2): 179-181. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/6572/5364
van Teijlingen, E., Benoit, C., Bourgeault, I., DeVries, R., Sandall, J., Wrede, S. (2015) Learning from health care in other countries: the prospect of comparative research, Health Prospect 14(1): 8-12. nepjol.info/index.php/HPROSPECT/article/view/13036/10525
Ireland, J., van Teijlingen, E., Kemp, J. (2015) Twinning in Nepal: the Royal College of Midwives UK and the Midwifery Society of Nepal working in partnership, Journal of Asian Midwives 2 (1): 26-33. http://ecommons.aku.edu/jam/vol2/iss1/5/
Sharma, S., Joshi, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) ‘Nepenglish’ or ‘Nepali English’: A new version of English? Asian Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences 4(2): 188-193. ajssh.leena-luna.co.jp/AJSSHPDFs/Vol.4%282%29/AJSSH2015%284.2-21%29.pdf
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P., Sathian, B. (2014) Mixed-methods approaches in health research in Nepal (editorial) Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 415-416.
Sharma, A, Tuladhar, G., Dhungel, A., Padmadharini, van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2015) Health Promotion: A review of policies and practices in Nepal, Public Health Perpective 5(2): http://phpnepal.org/index.php?listId=941#.VO4Qvn9tXkd
Simkhada, P., Lee, A., van Teijlingen, E., Karki, P., Neupane, C.H. (2015) Need and importance of health protection training in Nepal, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology (editorial) 5(1): 441-43. nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/12373/10032
Pant, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2015) Importance of public health in low- and middle- income countries. In: Vaidya, K., ed. (2015) Public Health for the Curious: Why Study Public Health? Canberra: The Curious Academic Publishing. ISBN 9781925128581
Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Pant, P.R., Sathian, B., Tuladhar, G. (2015) Public Health, Prevention & Health Promotion in Post-Earthquake Nepal, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 5(2): 462-464. nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/12826
Simkhada, P., Regmi, P.R., Pant, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Sathian, B. (2015) Stipulating citizens’ fundamental right to healthcare: Inference from the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nepal 2015. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 5(4); 516-517. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/14257/11576
Regmi, P.R., Aryal, N., Pant, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Devkota, B. (2015) Priority public health interventions and research agendas in post-earthquake Nepal. South East Asia Journal of Public Health 5(2): 7-12. http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/SEAJPH/article/view/28307/18835
Sahay, G., Devkota, B., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2016) Rebel Health Services in South Asia: Comparing Maoist-led Conflicts in India & Nepal, Sociological Bulletin 65(1):19-39.
Regmi, P.R., Aryal, N., van Teijlingen, E. (2016) Childbirth in the exam centres in Nepal: An overlooked Public Health issue!, Health Prospect 15(1): 20-21. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/HPROSPECT/article/view/14745/11954
van Teijlingen, E., Sathian, B., & Simkhada, P. (2016). Zika & Nepal: a far greater risk for its population than to individuals. Medical Science 4(2): 312-313. http://www.pubmedhouse.com/journals/ms/articles/1064/PMHID1064.pdf

August 8, 2016

Research Impact Metrics – useful reference cards

BU research, Impact, Public engagement, Research assessment, Research communication Pengpeng

In the Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework, Lord Stern has called for the broadening and deepening of the definition of impact. It is recommended that ‘impacts on public engagement and understanding are emphasised and that impacts on cultural life be specifically included’.

Partnering with librarian Jenny Delasalle, Library Connect has produced a useful and attractive consolidated quick reference guide to some key research impact metrics.

You can download your own copies here –

Download the 11×17” poster

Download the larger format cards – 4 per 8.5×11″ page

It is important however, that these research metrics are used with these 2 Golden Rules in mind, as recommended by the Library Connect Librarians Feedback Group and Lisa Colledge, Elsevier’s Director of Research Metrics:

Golden Rule 1 – Always use quantitative metric-based input alongside qualitative opinion-based input

Golden Rule 2 – Ensure that the quantitative, metrics part of your input always relies on at least 2 metrics to prevent bias and encouragement of undesirable behaviour.

Original blog post – https://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/metrics

April 18, 2016

Seminar, Prof Edwin van Teijlingen, ‘Maternal Mortality in Nepal’, Wed 20th April, Royal London House, R303, 13:00-13:50.

BU Challenges, BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, conferences, EU, Events, Featured academics, Fusion, Fusion Investment Fund, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team, Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Transfer Partnership, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research communication, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Research news, Research themes, Uncategorized Mastoureh Fathi

Maternal Mortality in Nepal
Abstract: The session links various social and political factors that affect maternal mortality. Women dying in pregnancy and childbirth is very much a problem of and in low-income countries. This talk focuses on Nepal, one of the poorer countries of the world, to highlight a range of maternal health issues and wider influencing factors including globalisation and the influence of global organisations such as the World Health Organisation.

For further information regarding the Social Science seminar series, get in touch with Dr Mastoureh Fathi (mfathi@boutnemouth.ac.uk).

April 15, 2016

Update on educational research at BU

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, REF Subjects, Research assessment jmcdougall

Following the CEL-ebrate events this week, an update on learning research projects currently in progress across BU, supported by UoA25 REF development funding.

This funding is distributed across BU to researchers working with CEL and CEMP on activities with clear potential for REF outputs in this new unit of assessment for BU.

The funding is supporting research development in three themes, aligned to CEL’s themes – Digital Media Literacies, Practitioner Enquiry and Education Dynamics. We’ve committed £100,000 this year to supporting a wide range of activities, all aligned to the themes and with a clear output plan, including the following –

Fair Access Research Writing Retreat / Impact Development Work;

Impact case study developments in CEMP (Research Assistant time) – Football Association (Reflective Coaching) – National FA (Burton) and AFC Bournemouth Youth Academy; Samsung (Digital Capabilities), United Kingdom Literacy Association (cross-curricular media literacy resources for secondary schools);

Digital Toolkit and Social Media Development;

Resources for ESRC workshop (‘Fused All Ways’) on creative methods for participative social science research with academics and undergraduates;

Third Space Learning and Co-creating design visualisations for enhancing public engagement and impact;

Educational Materials on Policing & Protest – an impact-oriented output of the #RiotID civic media project;

An analysis of the role of gratitude within the student experience;

Quantitative Analysis of User Generated Contents: A Study on Informal Learning and Slum Tourism in South Africa

Society for Research into Higher Education workshop;

Graduated Scenarios research;

Empires of Economy – CEMP research with Matt Locke (Storythings);

Cross- HEI bid writing workshops and pilot study (Nottingham, Surrey, Northumbria);

There may be others that we’ve missed off this list – apologies if so, not intended!
The criteria for providing funding are that the activity leads to the development of new educational research at BU with the potential to meet REF criteria for UoA25 and the enhancement of the research environment across CEMP and CEL, which could not be facilitated without this support. The funding supports a range of ‘levels’ of activity – from travelling to initiate new collaborations to growing a network through to the implementation of full projects and support for ‘writing up’ outputs. Projects planned – and activities leading to the development of projects – should be methodologically robust, rigorous in their intentions to generate new knowledge in the field and distinctive by research design. Where possible, priority is given to interdisciplinary / fused approaches and leading to a REF output relevant to UoA25 and, where possible, the intention to generate external funding.

For more information about UoA25 research at BU drop us an email or call in to CEL or CEMP.

Debbie Holley and Julian McDougall | UoA25 Leads

April 6, 2016

Open Access Drop-in Sessions

BRIAN, BU research, open access, Publishing, Research assessment Pengpeng

On 11th, 12th and 13th of April, RKEO will team up with the Library to provide Open Access Drop-in sessions. Please do pop in to get some hands on support and advice on making your research open access to comply with the HEFCE post-REF2014 Open Access Policy.

Monday, 11th April – 12.30pm to 1.30pm – S117, Studland House

Tuesday, 12th April – 12.30pm to 1.30pm – S117, Studland House

Wednesday, 13th April – 12.30pm to 1.30pm – S117, Studland House

March 22, 2016

Bournemouth Researcher/Academic Development (BRAD) events 4th-12th of April 2016

BU research, Business Engagement, EU, Funding opportunities, Public engagement, Research assessment, Research Training emilner

The Bournemouth Researcher/Academic Development (BRAD) events programme will run 4th of April – 12th of April 2016.

With less than two weeks to go until our BRAD events programme begins – there is still time to book yourself into one or more of our exciting events through Organisational Development. Please click on the links below to find out more information about each session and to book onto the training courses.

Monday April 4th

Case For Support with Dr. Andrew Derrington

The workshop is designed to start you working on an extremely efficient ’recipe’ for producing a “Case for Support” for research bids.

Developing an Effective Search Strategy and Using Researcher Tools with Emma Crowley

This course is intended to provide an overview of information resources.

What is REF? with Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

This session will cover the fundamentals of the Research Excellence Framework (REF)

Tuesday April 5th

Nvivo (Day 2) Advanced with Ben Meehan, Systems Analyst (Nvivo)

Whilst Nvivo Part 1 is largely conceptual, Part 2 is mainly practical and is quite technical.

Qualitative Research with Dr. Kip Jones

BU’s Centre for Qualitative Research will highlight recent work in the use of arts-based research and dissemination (Performative Social Science) in its outputs.

Introductory Research Professional Session with Luke George

This will be an introductory session on using Research Professional to help find funding run by Luke George from Research Professional.

Statistics Refresher with Dr. Zoe Sheppard

This workshop will provide an overview of quantitative research methods and is suitable for staff new to quantitative methods or who fancy a refresher.

Wednesday April 6th

Nvivo – Building Your Database with Ben Meehan, Systems Analyst (Nvivo)

The balance of Day 1 is conceptual and covers many planning decisions associated with gathering, importing and coding your qualitative data in a database environment, there is a practical element to the day.

Thursday April 7th

Research Bid Writing with Dr. Martin Pickard

This workshop includes writing grant proposals, and writing effective applications.

Ethics and Research Governance with Sarah Bell

A 20 minute presentation on ethical considerations, policy, and principles. Followed by a Q & A session on your ethical issues or questions related to your research.

Friday April 8th

Impact in Research with Genna West

This session will explore what we mean by impact and why it is an increasingly important part of your research career.

EndNote with Chris Wentzell & Phil Stocks

This workshop will help you learn about EndNote, the industry standard, reference management software.

The Principles of Grounded Theory with Dr. Liz Norton

This session will introduce the research approach of Grounded Theory.

Mixed Methods with Dr. Joanne Mayoh

This session will provide a broad overview of the practical and philosophical aspects of mixed methods research.

Innovation, Enterprise and Industry – Business Engagement and Networking with Rachel Clarke

For both early career researchers and experienced academics alike this session will include tips and information on how to develop and make the most of building relationships and networks with businesses.

Monday April 11th

Using social Media to Enhance Research Profile with Prof. Dimitrios Buhalis and Dr. Alessandro Inversini

Using Twitter, Blogs, social citations, Face Book, academia.edu and researchgate and online networking to raise your academic profile.

Tuesday April 12th

Public Engagement with Dr. Steve Dorney, Principal Public Engagement Fellow at the University of Southampton

An overview of the Public Engagement with Research (PER) agenda in the UK and internationally will be covered as part of this workshop.

March 18, 2016

Thinking about the next REF?

BRIAN, open access, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment Pengpeng

HEFCE’s policy for open access states that all new peer-reviewed journal articles and papers from published conference proceedings (with ISSN) should be deposited in our institutional repository BURO (through BRIAN), in full text form. Full compliance with this policy is now crucial, as HEFCE’s requirements for the next REF include the condition that outputs can only be submitted to the REF if they are published as open access at the point of acceptance.

All researchers need to follow these three steps, to ensure that all your articles can be considered for the next REF.

1. Keep your Authors’ Accepted Manuscript¹

Keep this version for journal articles and conference proceedings (with an ISSN). This is not necessary for books, chapters or other output types.
This is necessary even if the publisher will make the article Open Access on publication.
Whether you are the sole author, a co-author, a postgraduate or a professor, you need to keep this version of your paper.

2. Upload the Authors’ Accepted Manuscript to BRIAN as soon as it is accepted for publication²

When your publisher sends you an acceptance notification, log into BRIAN to add the basic publication details and upload the document.
The Library will ensure compliance with any embargo date.
You are now compliant!

3. Contact the BRIAN or BURO team for help or advice

Email openaccess@bournemouth.ac.uk or BURO@bournemouth.ac.uk with any queries or questions.
You can also visit the Library guidance page on Open Access and Depositing your Research.

All researchers must follow this for their work to be considered for the REF, in line with the HEFCE’s policy for open access. A comprehensive list of FAQs on the policy is available.

RKEO and the Library will be available to provide relevant support during these drop-in sessions:

11 April – 12.30pm to 1.30pm – S117, Studland House

12 April – 12.30pm to 1.30pm – S117, Studland House

13 April – 12.30pm to 1.30pm – S117, Studland House

No booking is necessary, just turn up!

¹Authors’ Accepted Manuscript – this is the final peer-reviewed manuscript, before the proof reading starts for the published version. It is often a Word document, publisher template, LaTeX file or PDF.

² This is when the publisher confirms to you that your article has been accepted.

(Post adapted from University of Bath, Library resources)

March 10, 2016

‘Voices of the Secret State’: Seminar presentation by Dr Hyun Joo Lim, 16th March, Studeland House, Room S206, 13:00-13:50

Awarded & submitted bids, BRIAN, BU Challenges, BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Coffee Morning, conferences, EU, Events, Featured, Featured academics, Funding opportunities, Fusion, Fusion Investment Fund, Grants Academy, Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Transfer Partnership, Publishing, R & KE Operations, Research assessment, Research communication, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Research news, Research themes, Uncategorized, Women's Academic Network Mastoureh Fathi

All staff and students welcome. Please feel free to bring your lunch.

Voices of the Secret State: Human Rights Activism among North Korean

Defectors in the UK

Abstract: My paper aims to highlight the lived experiences and identity formation of North Korean defectors settled in the UK who are involved in human rights activism. Whilst violations of human rights in North Korea are well documented, human rights activism by its defectors is less well known. Since 2004, approximately 600 North Koreans have settled in the UK. Free NK, a human rights organisation born out of this settlement, has been active in illuminating the reality of North Korea whilst also working towards subverting the regime by informing its fellow remainders about the outside world through the distribution of newspapers. This paper is drawn from ongoing research on North Korean defectors living in the UK. The data is collected using life history interviews to capture their lived experiences and to identify a range of factors which have influenced their involvement in the activism whilst also seeking to find better ways of improving the wellbeing and quality of life for those activists. The presentation will focus on the in-depth story of a North Korean defector who has founded Free NK. Themes that will be addressed in this story include the reason why he has fled North Korea; the processes of getting to the UK; challenges he has faced in his human rights activism.
Dr Hyun-Joo Lim is a lecturer in Sociology and the programme leader for BA Sociology and Social Policy at BU. She is originally from South Korea and has been engaged in various research projects that explore issues around migration, ‘race’/ethnicity, gender and identity. Her previous research examined East Asian mothers in Britain.

For more information about Social Science seminar series please get in touch with Dr Mastoureh Fathi (mfathi@bournemouth.ac.uk).

February 29, 2016

CEMP News

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Funding opportunities, Research assessment jmcdougall

A crop of CEMP news all in one post …

Here’s the March 2016 CEMP newsletter

Here’s the call for abstracts for our 2016 Media Education Summit, to be held in Rome.

And here’s the March 2016 CEMP / CEL funding bulletin. CEMP CEL bulletin March 16

Thanks to Marcellus Mbah and Richard Berger for putting this one together.

As always, to find out more about CEMP research or to follow up one of the ‘leads’ in the bulletin, please contact Richard Berger or Julian McDougall.

For more information about BU research for REF UoA25 (education) co-led by CEMP and CEL contact Julian McDougall (MC faculty) or Debbie Holley (non MC / cross BU).

February 17, 2016

Become an EU Expert to further your experience of research submissions

EU, Research assessment, Training Emily Cieciura

One important way to learn more about how a funder manages the process of accepting, evaluating and awarding grants is to act as an expert reviewing applications. It may also help you meet with other experts in your field or promote interdisciplinary working.

For the EU, there is a section on Participant Portal dedicated to experts where you can find out more about the commitment required and how to register. Experts for the EU are involved in:

evaluation of proposals
monitoring of actions

In addition, experts assist in the :

preparation, implementation or evaluation of programmes and design of policies. This includes the Horizon 2020 Advisory Groups.

There are also opportunities to become a Business Innovation Coach for the SME instrument.

Interested? Why not take a look at the resources made available for evaluators for the Innovative Training Networks call? This page shows how much support is made available to experts and how this can be a valuable addition to your research CV.

You might also like to take a look at the various videos on the YouTube channel – Innovation Union.

If you are already an expert, please contact Emily Cieciura, RKEO’s Research Facilitator: EU & International so that you can share your experiences with others at BU.

BU Research Blog

Category / Research assessment

HEFCE consultation on REF2021 – what you need to know

Addressing BREXIT at Humboldt University in Germany

Attention: All RCUK PIs and Students!

HE policy update

How to Write a 4* Article

Calling all RCUK PIs and Students!

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

Research Impact Metrics – useful reference cards

Update on educational research at BU

Open Access Drop-in Sessions

Bournemouth Researcher/Academic Development (BRAD) events 4th-12th of April 2016

Monday April 4th

Tuesday April 5th

Wednesday April 6th

Thursday April 7th

Friday April 8th

Monday April 11th

Tuesday April 12th

Thinking about the next REF?

1. Keep your Authors’ Accepted Manuscript¹

2. Upload the Authors’ Accepted Manuscript to BRIAN as soon as it is accepted for publication²

3. Contact the BRIAN or BURO team for help or advice

CEMP News

Become an EU Expert to further your experience of research submissions

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Research Information Network

UKRI

Category / Research assessment

Monday April 4th

Tuesday April 5th

Wednesday April 6th

Thursday April 7th

Friday April 8th

Monday April 11th

Tuesday April 12th

1. Keep your Authors’ Accepted Manuscript1

2. Upload the Authors’ Accepted Manuscript to BRIAN as soon as it is accepted for publication2

3. Contact the BRIAN or BURO team for help or advice

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics

1. Keep your Authors’ Accepted Manuscript¹

2. Upload the Authors’ Accepted Manuscript to BRIAN as soon as it is accepted for publication²