[Rdf-internal] FW: REF To Do

[Bernd Stahl (staff)]

Hi all,
I don’t think there is anything surprising here and Andy covered these points, but here it is for info anyway.

Kind regards,
Bernd

From: Andy Crabtree (staff) <andy.crabtree at nottingham.ac.uk>
Sent: 08 July 2026 16:26
To: Praminda Caleb-Solly (staff) <Praminda.Caleb-Solly at nottingham.ac.uk>; Dario Landa Silva (staff) <dario.landasilva at nottingham.ac.uk>; Andrew French (staff) <andrew.p.french at nottingham.ac.uk>; Steven Furnell (staff) <Steven.Furnell at nottingham.ac.uk>; Christian Wagner (staff) <Christian.Wagner at nottingham.ac.uk>; Graham Hutton (staff) <graham.hutton at nottingham.ac.uk>; Chris Greenhalgh (staff) <Chris.Greenhalgh at nottingham.ac.uk>; Bernd Stahl (staff) <Bernd.Stahl at nottingham.ac.uk>
Cc: Tony Pridmore (staff) <tony.pridmore at nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: REF To Do


Hi,



I’ve updated the slide deck I sent you last week on the REF R2 outputs review in light of modest changes made earlier this week, please delete the old deck (rule 5c of the algorithm has been updated; there is a new 5d - not included - that will do the same job as the original 5c if we need to apply it in due course).



Can you all please announce the start of the rolling review period to your research groups by email and at your next group meeting. Please inform staff supporting statements should be sent directly to me by email from here on in. The form is in the REF section of your shared group folders.



We have a number of other actions we will need to do at some point. There’s no rush for these, this is just a heads up, make a start if you want or let them ride, I’ll give you plenty of notice when they do need doing.



1. As previously announced to staff and stated in the slide deck, outputs labelled ‘DNS' (do not submit) should be reviewed and factual evidence provided to me *if and only if* it is believed a mistake has been made *and* the output is at minimum 3*



2. Sanity check outputs labelled ‘accept’ and ‘watch’ to make sure they actually DO report original research. Please flag to me if any do not, OR if the research reported is an extension of OR incremental to other research. Authors should not sanity check their own outputs.



3. Check if any of the group’s outputs, including those deleted in round 1 or labelled DNS in round 2, can be returned to other UOAs. You can see all outputs submitted by the group and if they have been nominated by authors or reviewers to other UOAs in the updated ‘R2 results (read-only)’ file. Outputs can be returned to multiple UOAs or panels. The list of panels is here: https://2029.ref.ac.uk/panels/main-and-sub-panels/



4. Rank your group’s outputs. Certainly those labelled ‘accept’ and ‘watch’. Possibly those labelled ‘DNS’, at least if you feel strongly they should be included in our REF return. A simple list of output ID's (e.g., CHART1) with entries listed *in order of preference* where the first is the most preferred and the last the least will do. Put them in the order you want, not what the scores say (I will have a list that does that). It would be nice if there were some correlation between the two, but don’t be constrained by the scores, go with what you as a group think are your strongest returns.



5. This will be sooner rather than later (probably before Xmas) - provide a 2 page description (max) of who the group is and its current members (N L7, L6, L5, etc.), what it does (its core areas of research), and (this should be the main part) its key achievements since January 2021. This will feed into the SPRE statement.



Once again, thanks for all your help as authors, reviewers, and team leads.



I’ll be back to nag you and yours after summer. Hope you all have a good one.



best wishes,

andy



PS what you can’t see now is me running around going “yes, I’ve got my ******* life back for a bit”



Have a good one :)))




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20260708/9f41516f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CS REF R2 outputs review outcomes and next steps v.2.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 181959 bytes
Desc: CS REF R2 outputs review outcomes and next steps v.2.pptx
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/rdf-internal/attachments/20260708/9f41516f/attachment-0001.pptx>