[Rdf-internal] FW: REF outputs spreadsheet

[Bernd Stahl]

Hi all,
This may be of interest, if you want to compare where we stand in comparison with the other groups.
The first round of internal peer review is due tonight, so we will soon see how they evaluate papers.
You will see that I have taken a very different approach from the other groups and been much more selective in what I included. We can discuss our approach once we have a clearer view of how the first round of reviews has gone.

Kind regards,
Bernd

From: Andy Crabtree (staff) <pszaxc at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
Sent: 07 March 2025 14:56
To: Thorsten Altenkirch (staff) <psztxa at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Steve Benford (staff) <pszsdb at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Praminda Caleb-Solly (staff) <pszpc1 at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Joel Fischer (staff) <pszjf1 at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Andrew French (staff) <sbzapf at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Steven Furnell (staff) <pszsf at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Chris Greenhalgh (staff) <pszcmg at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Gail Hopkins (staff) <pszgtr at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Graham Hutton (staff) <pszgmh at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Boriana Koleva (staff) <pszbnk at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Nicolai Kraus (staff) <psznk at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Ayse Kucukyilmaz (staff) <pszak1 at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Dario Landa Silva (staff) <pszjds at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Robert Laramee (staff) <pszrsl at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Ender Ozcan (staff) <pszeo at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Elvira Perez Vallejos (staff) <mszep at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Rong Qu (staff) <pszrq at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Bernd Stahl (staff) <pszbcs at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Craig Vear (staff) <amzcv at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Christian Wagner (staff) <pszcw at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Michael Pound (staff) <sbzmpp at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; Max Wilson (staff) <pszmw at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: REF outputs spreadsheet

Hi,

Attached are the collated outputs minus those that were not affiliated to UoN, are not yet published (no DOI or URL, these can be add in the next round), and a poster

There are 250 outputs in total, but 62 are not eligible at this point (not in RIS, not discoverable, or not OA), which leaves us with 188 to review (it may rise if some of those not currently eligible become so, people are are trying to fix them)

You will find FWCI for each output where available in the spreadsheet (N/A means not available in Scopus when I looked them up … Rong has a paper with an FWCI of 138!!! by the way, wow). I’ll send out a list of reviews for each of you next week.

Thanks to those of you who are getting reviews back to me already, that’s great, keep ‘em coming, a steady drip is the way to do this I think (don’t leave them to pile up)

Hope you have a good weekend,

andy



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20250307/dd73eab0/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: REF Outputs Collated (Jan 2025) [1].xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 77003 bytes
Desc: REF Outputs Collated (Jan 2025) [1].xlsx
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20250307/dd73eab0/attachment-0001.xlsx>