[Rdf-internal] Fw: REF outputs review

[Bernd Stahl]

Some more REF guidance
________________________________
From: Andy Crabtree (staff) <pszaxc at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 17:29
To: Praminda Caleb-Solly (staff) <pszpc1 at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Dario Landa Silva (staff) <pszjds at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Andrew French (staff) <sbzapf at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Steven Furnell (staff) <pszsf at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Christian Wagner (staff) <pszcw at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Graham Hutton (staff) <pszgmh at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Boriana Koleva (staff) <pszbnk at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Steve Benford (staff) <pszsdb at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Bernd Stahl (staff) <pszbcs at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
Cc: Tony Pridmore (staff) <psztpp at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
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) <pszaxc at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk> 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: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20241205/2e7cb10f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20241205/2e7cb10f/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20241205/2e7cb10f/attachment-0003.docx>