From Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk Mon Dec 2 20:50:23 2024 From: Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk (Bernd Stahl) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Rdf-internal] meeting Wednesday Message-ID: Hi all, I will be in London for the Digital Ethics Summit on Wednesday, so will cancel the weekly meeting for this week. Kind regards, Bernd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk Mon Dec 2 21:12:24 2024 From: Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk (Bernd Stahl) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:12:24 +0000 Subject: [Rdf-internal] FW: REF outputs review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surprise! The REF output collection has come back again. I have just had a look through the 100 words of the papers that have them and left comments. Can you please check yours? Several were mostly or exclusively abstracts. That?s not what we need. We need comments on originality, rigour, and significance. I think we can use citation counts as evidence of significance. But we cannot use impact factors or standing of journals because of the University?s DORA commitments. Kind regards, Bernd From: Andy Crabtree (staff) Sent: 02 December 2024 14:24 To: Praminda Caleb-Solly (staff) ; Dario Landa Silva (staff) ; Andrew French (staff) ; Steven Furnell (staff) ; Christian Wagner (staff) ; Graham Hutton (staff) ; Boriana Koleva (staff) ; Steve Benford (staff) ; Bernd Stahl (staff) Cc: Tony Pridmore (staff) Subject: REF outputs review Importance: High Hi, I emailed you all a few weeks ago asking you to start assembling data for the REF output review. This is now a *priority* and should be completed by the end of January. Attached is a slightly amended spreadsheet to collate the data. You can cut and paste if you have already made a start. There is just 1 extra column of information (strength of rating), which is required so we are consistent with other schools in Faculty. You should put the form in a share folder and share it with your research group so staff can add data, guidance is below, share this with your team too please. You should also give me access so I can collate data across the School. Please send me the share link asap. Please let me know if you have any queries. best wishes, andy Guidance: Follow the guidance below to select outputs for inclusion in the School?s first REF2029 assessment exercise. An output is a full paper presented at a conference, a journal paper, a book chapter, or a book that presents *original research* conducted by CS staff. Output selection criteria a) You should only select potential 3 or 4 star outputs for review. * Potential 4 star outputs are world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. * Potential 3 star outputs are internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour, but fall short of the highest standards of excellence. * Originality is understood as the extent to which the output introduces a new way of thinking about a subject, or is distinctive or transformative compared with previous work in an academic field. * Significance is understood as the extent to which the output has exerted, or is likely to exert, an influence on an academic field or practical applications. * Rigour is understood as the extent to which the purpose of the output is clearly articulated, an appropriate methodology for the research area has been adopted, and compelling evidence presented to show that the purpose has been achieved. b) You should only select outputs that are clearly affiliated with the University of Nottingham, i.e., contain a UoN author address. c) You should only select outputs published from January 2021 forwards. d) You should only select outputs that are Open Access (OA) Green route OA, i.e., the *accepted version* of the output placed on a publicly accessible archive (such as arXiv), and gold route OA, i.e., outputs made publicly accessible by the publisher, may be selected. e) If an output includes *multiple authors in the School*, then *only one author* should nominate the paper for review, so talk to your co-authors *first* and decided who is best placed to explain why the output is potential 3 or 4 star (see reporting requirements below). f) Make sure selected outputs are in RIS and ?discoverable? Reporting requirements The submitting author will need to provide a short (100 words max) description explaining why they think each selected output is potential 3 or 4 star. Use the 100 words to provide *verifiable evidence not contained within the paper* of how the output has gained recognition, led to further developments, and/or been applied, e.g., best paper awards, follow on grants, keynotes, external impact on other people?s work, industry uptake (inc. contact details), patents, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: (Research group name) potential REF2029 outputs.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 14166 bytes Desc: (Research group name) potential REF2029 outputs.xlsx URL: From Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk Tue Dec 3 13:23:22 2024 From: Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk (Bernd Stahl) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:23:22 +0000 Subject: [Rdf-internal] FW: REF outputs review In-Reply-To: <5CE19CB7-D421-4602-BC04-BABAA1A59DC5@nottingham.ac.uk> References: <5CE19CB7-D421-4602-BC04-BABAA1A59DC5@nottingham.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi all, Some clarification of REF rules for 2029. This is likely to be most relevant to those of us who joined recently. But it means that our DMU papers won?t count. Kind regards, Bernd From: Andy Crabtree (staff) Sent: 03 December 2024 09:46 To: Praminda Caleb-Solly (staff) ; Dario Landa Silva (staff) ; Andrew French (staff) ; Steven Furnell (staff) ; Christian Wagner (staff) ; Graham Hutton (staff) ; Boriana Koleva (staff) ; Steve Benford (staff) ; Bernd Stahl (staff) Cc: Tony Pridmore (staff) Subject: Re: REF outputs review Importance: High Hi, This is worth sharing with you all: Bernd asks "In previous REF cycles, researchers could take papers with them and submit for the institution that employed them at the cut-off date. Has this changed or do we know it will change for the next REF?" It has changed. The next REF breaks the link between individuals and outputs to stop the mass transfer market of academics The REF2029 return will be determined by number of FTE (eligible level 5 and above) x 2.5 based on 2 years of HESA data (25-27), all of which means it will *only* count outputs with a UoN affiliation I?ve double-checked with Faculty and this is correct So if any of your staff who have joined since January 2021, they *cannot* return outputs from an institution where they were previously employed To reiterate, all REF outputs must have a UoN affiliation (and be Open Access, green or gold, and be discoverable in RIS, and have at least one level 5 R, R&T and/or Technical member of staff as named author) best wishes, andy On 2 Dec 2024, at 14:23, Andy Crabtree (staff) > wrote: Hi, I emailed you all a few weeks ago asking you to start assembling data for the REF output review. This is now a *priority* and should be completed by the end of January. Attached is a slightly amended spreadsheet to collate the data. You can cut and paste if you have already made a start. There is just 1 extra column of information (strength of rating), which is required so we are consistent with other schools in Faculty. You should put the form in a share folder and share it with your research group so staff can add data, guidance is below, share this with your team too please. You should also give me access so I can collate data across the School. Please send me the share link asap. Please let me know if you have any queries. best wishes, andy Guidance: Follow the guidance below to select outputs for inclusion in the School?s first REF2029 assessment exercise. An output is a full paper presented at a conference, a journal paper, a book chapter, or a book that presents *original research* conducted by CS staff. Output selection criteria a) You should only select potential 3 or 4 star outputs for review. * Potential 4 star outputs are world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. * Potential 3 star outputs are internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour, but fall short of the highest standards of excellence. * Originality is understood as the extent to which the output introduces a new way of thinking about a subject, or is distinctive or transformative compared with previous work in an academic field. * Significance is understood as the extent to which the output has exerted, or is likely to exert, an influence on an academic field or practical applications. * Rigour is understood as the extent to which the purpose of the output is clearly articulated, an appropriate methodology for the research area has been adopted, and compelling evidence presented to show that the purpose has been achieved. b) You should only select outputs that are clearly affiliated with the University of Nottingham, i.e., contain a UoN author address. c) You should only select outputs published from January 2021 forwards. d) You should only select outputs that are Open Access (OA) Green route OA, i.e., the *accepted version* of the output placed on a publicly accessible archive (such as arXiv), and gold route OA, i.e., outputs made publicly accessible by the publisher, may be selected. e) If an output includes *multiple authors in the School*, then *only one author* should nominate the paper for review, so talk to your co-authors *first* and decided who is best placed to explain why the output is potential 3 or 4 star (see reporting requirements below). f) Make sure selected outputs are in RIS and ?discoverable? Reporting requirements The submitting author will need to provide a short (100 words max) description explaining why they think each selected output is potential 3 or 4 star. Use the 100 words to provide *verifiable evidence not contained within the paper* of how the output has gained recognition, led to further developments, and/or been applied, e.g., best paper awards, follow on grants, keynotes, external impact on other people?s work, industry uptake (inc. contact details), patents, etc. <(Research group name) potential REF2029 outputs.xlsx> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk Thu Dec 5 09:38:15 2024 From: Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk (Bernd Stahl) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 09:38:15 +0000 Subject: [Rdf-internal] Fw: REF outputs review In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Some more REF guidance ________________________________ From: Andy Crabtree (staff) Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 17:29 To: Praminda Caleb-Solly (staff) ; Dario Landa Silva (staff) ; Andrew French (staff) ; Steven Furnell (staff) ; Christian Wagner (staff) ; Graham Hutton (staff) ; Boriana Koleva (staff) ; Steve Benford (staff) ; Bernd Stahl (staff) Cc: Tony Pridmore (staff) Subject: Re: REF outputs review Hi, Some additional guidance attached to share with your teams A doc about how to determine the potential 3* or 4* status of an output And a doc about writing the 100 word statement best wishes, andy On 2 Dec 2024, at 14:23, Andy Crabtree (staff) wrote: Hi, I emailed you all a few weeks ago asking you to start assembling data for the REF output review. This is now a *priority* and should be completed by the end of January. Attached is a slightly amended spreadsheet to collate the data. You can cut and paste if you have already made a start. There is just 1 extra column of information (strength of rating), which is required so we are consistent with other schools in Faculty. You should put the form in a share folder and share it with your research group so staff can add data, guidance is below, share this with your team too please. You should also give me access so I can collate data across the School. Please send me the share link asap. Please let me know if you have any queries. best wishes, andy Guidance: Follow the guidance below to select outputs for inclusion in the School?s first REF2029 assessment exercise. An output is a full paper presented at a conference, a journal paper, a book chapter, or a book that presents *original research* conducted by CS staff. Output selection criteria a) You should only select potential 3 or 4 star outputs for review. * Potential 4 star outputs are world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. * Potential 3 star outputs are internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour, but fall short of the highest standards of excellence. * Originality is understood as the extent to which the output introduces a new way of thinking about a subject, or is distinctive or transformative compared with previous work in an academic field. * Significance is understood as the extent to which the output has exerted, or is likely to exert, an influence on an academic field or practical applications. * Rigour is understood as the extent to which the purpose of the output is clearly articulated, an appropriate methodology for the research area has been adopted, and compelling evidence presented to show that the purpose has been achieved. b) You should only select outputs that are clearly affiliated with the University of Nottingham, i.e., contain a UoN author address. c) You should only select outputs published from January 2021 forwards. d) You should only select outputs that are Open Access (OA) Green route OA, i.e., the *accepted version* of the output placed on a publicly accessible archive (such as arXiv), and gold route OA, i.e., outputs made publicly accessible by the publisher, may be selected. e) If an output includes *multiple authors in the School*, then *only one author* should nominate the paper for review, so talk to your co-authors *first* and decided who is best placed to explain why the output is potential 3 or 4 star (see reporting requirements below). f) Make sure selected outputs are in RIS and ?discoverable? Reporting requirements The submitting author will need to provide a short (100 words max) description explaining why they think each selected output is potential 3 or 4 star. Use the 100 words to provide *verifiable evidence not contained within the paper* of how the output has gained recognition, led to further developments, and/or been applied, e.g., best paper awards, follow on grants, keynotes, external impact on other people?s work, industry uptake (inc. contact details), patents, etc. <(Research group name) potential REF2029 outputs.xlsx> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Guidance on writing the 100 word statement.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20638 bytes Desc: Guidance on writing the 100 word statement.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Guidance on determining 3 or 4 star rating.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16885 bytes Desc: Guidance on determining 3 or 4 star rating.docx URL: From Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk Fri Dec 6 14:47:25 2024 From: Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk (Bernd Stahl) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 14:47:25 +0000 Subject: [Rdf-internal] FW: REF outputs review In-Reply-To: <50F23B00-F9B7-4A75-8A52-3CCCFD486329@nottingham.ac.uk> References: <50F23B00-F9B7-4A75-8A52-3CCCFD486329@nottingham.ac.uk> Message-ID: For info From: Andy Crabtree (staff) Sent: 06 December 2024 13:59 To: Praminda Caleb-Solly (staff) ; Dario Landa Silva (staff) ; Andrew French (staff) ; Steven Furnell (staff) ; Christian Wagner (staff) ; Graham Hutton (staff) ; Boriana Koleva (staff) ; Steve Benford (staff) ; Bernd Stahl (staff) Cc: Tony Pridmore (staff) Subject: Re: REF outputs review Importance: High Hi, Rumour has it that the 100 word statement will be dispensed with for REF20209, so there?s no need to bother doing them Perhaps it will, but it?s not official and regardless, *we* still need information to help *us* determine the quality of outputs So for the time being, in the absence of further guidance from REF, the 100 word requirement stands with the proviso written into the last REF that "It is expected in most cases sufficient information will be provided in significantly fewer words than the 100-word limit.? What matters is evidence that demonstrates "the extent to which the work has influenced, or has the capacity to influence, knowledge and scholarly thought, or the development and understanding of policy and/or practice.? The 100 words is neither here nor there, *evidence* that demonstrates an output's significance is and we still want/need it. best wishes, andy On 2 Dec 2024, at 14:23, Andy Crabtree (staff) > wrote: Hi, I emailed you all a few weeks ago asking you to start assembling data for the REF output review. This is now a *priority* and should be completed by the end of January. Attached is a slightly amended spreadsheet to collate the data. You can cut and paste if you have already made a start. There is just 1 extra column of information (strength of rating), which is required so we are consistent with other schools in Faculty. You should put the form in a share folder and share it with your research group so staff can add data, guidance is below, share this with your team too please. You should also give me access so I can collate data across the School. Please send me the share link asap. Please let me know if you have any queries. best wishes, andy Guidance: Follow the guidance below to select outputs for inclusion in the School?s first REF2029 assessment exercise. An output is a full paper presented at a conference, a journal paper, a book chapter, or a book that presents *original research* conducted by CS staff. Output selection criteria a) You should only select potential 3 or 4 star outputs for review. * Potential 4 star outputs are world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. * Potential 3 star outputs are internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour, but fall short of the highest standards of excellence. * Originality is understood as the extent to which the output introduces a new way of thinking about a subject, or is distinctive or transformative compared with previous work in an academic field. * Significance is understood as the extent to which the output has exerted, or is likely to exert, an influence on an academic field or practical applications. * Rigour is understood as the extent to which the purpose of the output is clearly articulated, an appropriate methodology for the research area has been adopted, and compelling evidence presented to show that the purpose has been achieved. b) You should only select outputs that are clearly affiliated with the University of Nottingham, i.e., contain a UoN author address. c) You should only select outputs published from January 2021 forwards. d) You should only select outputs that are Open Access (OA) Green route OA, i.e., the *accepted version* of the output placed on a publicly accessible archive (such as arXiv), and gold route OA, i.e., outputs made publicly accessible by the publisher, may be selected. e) If an output includes *multiple authors in the School*, then *only one author* should nominate the paper for review, so talk to your co-authors *first* and decided who is best placed to explain why the output is potential 3 or 4 star (see reporting requirements below). f) Make sure selected outputs are in RIS and ?discoverable? Reporting requirements The submitting author will need to provide a short (100 words max) description explaining why they think each selected output is potential 3 or 4 star. Use the 100 words to provide *verifiable evidence not contained within the paper* of how the output has gained recognition, led to further developments, and/or been applied, e.g., best paper awards, follow on grants, keynotes, external impact on other people?s work, industry uptake (inc. contact details), patents, etc. <(Research group name) potential REF2029 outputs.xlsx> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk Mon Dec 9 10:52:28 2024 From: Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk (Bernd Stahl) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:52:28 +0000 Subject: [Rdf-internal] Wednesday RDF internal meeting Message-ID: Hi all, We have the monthly RDF meeting on Wednesday where Muhammad will present. I would still like to keep the weekly one right after that, as there is a bunch of things we need to discuss. So, please keep the invite in your diary and we can reconnect after the monthly meeting on Wednesday. Kind regards, Bernd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk Wed Dec 11 13:35:25 2024 From: Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk (Bernd Stahl) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:35:25 +0000 Subject: [Rdf-internal] face to face meeting in January Message-ID: Hi all, As just discussed, can you please fill in this doodle to indicate when you would be available for a face to face meeting in Nottingham in the new year? https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/aKzLoGxe If you could do this by the end of the week, I would send out an invite over the weekend. Kind regards, Bernd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk Sat Dec 14 18:01:50 2024 From: Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk (Bernd Stahl) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:01:50 +0000 Subject: [Rdf-internal] RDF meeting Message-ID: Hi all, There was no perfect day where everyone is available, so please use this calendar invite to block the day. I have started an agenda which you can find here: [?docx icon] 2025-01-24_RDF_agenda.docx Please feel free to add / amend / edit. Kind regards, Bernd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2423 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 430 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: