[Rdf-internal] FW: REF Readiness Review (round 2)

[Bernd Stahl (staff)]

Hi all,
All the documents that Andy refers to are in our internal RDF folder under REF2029:

[​Folder icon] RDF metrics<https://uniofnottm.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/ResponsibleDigitalFutures-RDFinternal/Shared%20Documents/RDF%20internal/REF%202029/RDF%20metrics?csf=1&web=1&e=0lurUQ>

Kind regards,
Bernd

From: Andy Crabtree (staff) <andy.crabtree at nottingham.ac.uk>
Sent: 04 November 2025 13:00
To: PS-CS-Academic <PS-CS-Academic at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: REF Readiness Review (round 2)
Importance: High

Hi,

I’m sure you will very pleased to hear that the second round of output reviews for REF2029 starts now 😁

If you are research active, this guidance applies to you so *please read carefully*

1. Your group leader hosts a shared folder — called ‘R2 (live)’ — with the documentation you will need to complete this round

2. Read the file 'REF infoPack' *before* you nominate any outputs (conference or journal papers, books or book chapters) for review so you understand the assessment criteria; we are looking for 3* & 4* outputs

3. Nominate potential 3* & 4* outputs published since January 2025 in the file ‘REF R2 outputs list’

Note 1. Don’t forget to ask your research staff / PGRs if they have published anything this year that could be 3* or 4* quality

Note 2. Previous submissions that were accepted but not published at the time of the last review (e.g., CHI 2025 outputs), were *not* reviewed, so please *add* them to the list as well if you think they are of 3* or 4* quality

Note 3. Any output published since January 2021 that provides a literature review / survey should *not* be submitted *unless* it can be demonstrated it might satisfy 3* or 4* quality criteria; these outputs should be flagged directly to the Director of Research (email me) and be accompanied by a supporting statement (see below) explaining how they meet quality criteria

4. Write a 200 word (max) supporting statement for each nominated output using the Supporting Statement Template and once completed put it in the ‘Drop … here’ folder

Note 4. You should *also* write a supporting statement (as above) for every output you submitted in the last round that was deemed potential 3* or 4* (I’ll let you know by email if you have any); you may also have received some useful feedback to draw on, see the 'R1 reviewed’ file in the 'R1 (Jan 2025) completed’ folder to find out

5. The deadline for submission of outputs to review (including supporting statements) is 30th of January 2026

6. It won’t take a great deal of time to read the guidance, add your nominated output(s) to the list, and write a short supporting statement for each, but please don’t leave it until the deadline. Many of the 100 word descriptions provided last time round (if they were provided at all) were not very informative or useful. So, unfortunately, I will be sending them back to do again as a *priority* if that is the case this time round. Please feel free to ping me with a draft if you want me cast an eye over a statement.

Any queries, any questions, anything you’re not sure about, please let me know

best wishes,
andy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20251104/e947a4e8/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20251104/e947a4e8/attachment-0001.png>