REF 2021 draft guidance digest and key points

Transcription

1 REF 2021 draft guidance digest and key points 1. The REF Team at Research England, UKRI, published five documents on 23 July: a. Draft guidance on submissions b. Consultation on the panel criteria and working methods c. Draft guidance on codes of practice d. Guidance to panels e. Equality briefing for REF panels 2. Final versions of Guidance on Submissions, Panel Criteria and Working Methods, and Guidance on Codes of Practice, will be published in January 2019, after a consultation round. The Consultation covers the draft Guidance on Submissions and Panel Criteria and Working Methods only, and closes on 15 October The REF team may issue supplementary guidance at later dates to clarify points of detail; such additional guidance will not, however, request new data items. 4. The summary below attempts to synthesise some three hundred pages of documentation. I have therefore attempted to pick out the major key points; I go into detail only where the proposal is significantly different from REF 2014 or previously indicated plans. It is not a substitute for reading the guidance as published. Particularly in the Panel Criteria and Working Methods there is extensive example e.g. of impacts and indicators, and clarifications and additional information requests which it is impractical to go into here. Guidance on Submissions / Panel Criteria and Working Methods 5. Units of Assessment a. Institutions must normally make a single submission into each UoA. Making multiple submissions is permitted, for a number of organisational reasons none of which apply to ARU, or for disciplinary reasons but only in relation to a small number of UoAs in Main Panels C and D, including UoAs 32, 33 and 34 to which ARU presently expects to submit. Our plans to make multiple submissions to UoA 3 are NOT possible under these rules. b. Institutions may, exceptionally, request exemption from submission to a UoA where the total submitted FTE would be less than 5, and it has a distinct and separate research environment. If the unit was not previously submitted to REF it must not be a focus for investment. If it was previously submitted the staff profile of the unit must have since changed. c. In UoA 4 Psychology, institutions are required to provide research cost information to help the funding bodies understand the balance of research in the submitting unit at different cost levels. This will influence decisions on the allocation of QR funding but will not have any influence on the assessment of the quality of the research in the submitting unit. 6. Staff

2 a. Institutions must submit all staff identified as carrying significant responsibility for research on the staff census date, 31 July The REF team intend to cross-check the mapping of staff into UoAs against the HESA staff record return for as part of the survey on submissions intentions in autumn 2019 and to follow up any anomalies identified. The implication is that the HESA return will include flagging which staff carry significant responsibility for research and the likely UoAs of those staff. b. Institutions must be able to verify through audit that eligible staff who are not submitted do not carry significant responsibility for research. c. Submitted staff must also be independent researchers. Staff with a teaching and research type contract are automatically deemed as independent. Institutions must explain, in their Code of Practice, the process for determining whether research-only staff are independent researchers. d. Submitted staff must have a substantive connection to the institution. For those employed on a minimum fractional contract ( FTE), a 200-word statement evidencing this connection must be provided. No such statement is required where the reason is due to caring responsibilities, other individual circumstances, reduced hours on approach to retirement, or reflects normal disciplinary practice. e. Early Career Researchers are defined as individuals who first hold an eligible contract of employment and met the definition of an independent researcher on or after 1 August The HESA staff return for and will include a field for institutions to identify those staff meeting the ECR definition and if the implication in the guidance is to be believed, this will drive these individuals being flagged in the REF submission system. f. Institutions will have to collect and assess Individual Staff Circumstances much as they did for REF 2014 to enable institutions to claim output reductions, either at a unit or individual level. 7. Outputs a. All output types that reflect research are permitted. A new output type Type V translation has been added to the classification system. b. Normally, a unit must return a total number of outputs equivalent to 2.5 times their FTE, with a minimum of one output and a maximum of five outputs included for each individual listed (including former staff). Outputs must be published between 1 January 2014 and 31 December A reserve output may be submitted in respect of pending outputs (to be published after the submission deadline and before the end of 2021); full details of pending outputs must be provided by 29 January c. Reductions in the total number of outputs required can be had, to a maximum reduction of 1.5 outputs per individual, to recognise individual staff circumstances including ECR status, secondments or career breaks, maternity, paternity and adoption leave, ill-health and disability etc. Because part-time working is taken into in calculating the total requirement, a reduction based on part time working can only exceptionally be requested, e.g. where an individual is full-time on the staff census date but had been 0.2 FTE for much of the rest of the period. For example, where an individual first qualified as an ECR between 1 August 2016 and 31 July 2017, or where a researcher has a discrete period of maternity leave, the overall pool can be reduced by 0.5 outputs. Where an individual has circumstances allowing a reduction, there is no requirement to use them. However, reductions should be reflected in the outputs

3 submitted for the individual whose circumstances apply: the REF team does not expect to receive a submission in which individual A s circumstances led to a 1.5 output reduction in the unit s total, but where individual A nonetheless submits the maximum. d. Where an individual s circumstances are exceptionally such that they have been unable to produce an eligible output during the assessment period, a request can be made to remove the minimum requirement for that individual. Typically, this is likely to relate to 46 months or more of absence from research, including for reasons of illhealth or, for example, an individual first meeting the definition of an ECR only in the final months of the assessment period, and two or more discrete periods of familyrelated leave in the assessment period. Institutions will be invited to make such requests in autumn 2019, with a deadline for requests in March Requests will be considered by EDAP and an outcome provided before the census date. e. Outputs by former staff first made publicly available during that individual s employment may be returned. Former staff include individuals remaining in the employment of the institution but who do not qualify as Category A eligible staff on the census date. Outputs generated by former staff which become publicly available only after their departure are not eligible. f. Open Access requirements apply to journal articles and conference contributions carrying an ISSN which were accepted for publication on or after 1 April A maximum 5% tolerance for non-compliance will apply to in-scope outputs. g. Outputs made publicly available in a preliminary (e.g. early online) form in the 2013 calendar year and published in the REF 2021 assessment period are eligible for return so long as they were not previously submitted by the same institution (rather than individual) to REF h. Double weighting has been retained, and can be used as before to mean that a single output can count twice where its scale and scope justify it. In the context of unit-wide submissions, this can mean the same output counting twice for a single author, or counting once for two co-authors, where it may provide the minimum requirement for one or both individuals. Main Panels A and B anticipate double-weighting requests only exceptionally. Main Panels C and D both anticipate that most books, monographs, novels and other long-form outputs can be double weighted. Main Panel C requires institutions to provide a 100-word statement justifying doubleweighting in all cases. Main Panel D anticipates requiring such a statement only where the grounds for the double-weighting request are not self-evident. A reserve output may be submitted. i. Additional information may be requested by the different Main Panels, e.g. about the submitting author s contribution (for outputs with ten authors or more in Main Panel A; and more than 25 co-authors in Main Panel B. Information about the research process/context is required in all Main Panels where the research process and content is not evident. Information about significance is required in Sub-Panels 11 and 12. j. Citation information will be used in Main Panel A, Main Panel B Sub-Panels 7, 8 and 9, and Main Panel C Sub-Panel 16 only. Citation information will not be used in Main Panel D or the unlisted Sub-Panels and Main Panels B and C. 8. Impact a. Impact case studies report impacts realised between 1 August 2013 and 31 July 2020, underpinned by excellent (2*) research produced by the submitting unit between 1

4 January 2000 and 31 December Two case studies are required for units up to FTE, three for units between 20 and FTE, etc. b. Impacts on students, teaching or other activities within the submitting institution are eligible for return, removing the REF 2014 requirement that such impact had to extend significantly beyond it. c. The REF team has published additional guidelines on presenting quantitative data within impact case studies. d. Case studies continuing from REF 2014 are permitted. Continuing has been defined to mean that the body of underpinning research (as distinct from the outputs cited in evidencing it) is the same, i.e. that no new research has taken place and that there is significant overlap in the impact described, so that the impact types and beneficiaries are largely the same as for REF e. A revised case study template has been provided. For submission, a maximum of five pages is allowed, including all references, but excluding some additional fields and personal details of corroborating sources. f. Institutions are required to submit the corroborating evidence supporting impact case studies by 29 January This will be held by the REF team and not made available routinely to panels, but only as a result of an audit request. 9. Environment data a. Doctoral degree completions and research income data will be aligned against HESA returns; research income-in-kind will be aligned against information held by the Research Councils and specific health funding bodies. This data will be provided back to institutions by the REF team for each HESA return excepting which institutions must compile themselves. An exact match is not expected, but significant differences between REF data and other returns will be investigated. 10. Environment narrative. Each submission now includes two elements, as below, but which will be assessed together: a. An institutional environment statement, comprising information about the context and mission of the institution, the institution s strategy for research and enabling impact (including integrity, open research, and support for interdisciplinary research during the assessment period and for the next five years; information on staffing strategy and staff development, support for research students, equality and diversity, income, infrastructure and facilities. A maximum of 2,000 words, for units of up to FTE, is permitted. b. A unit-level statement, also covering context, structure and strategy; people; income, infrastructure and facilities; and collaboration and contribution to the discipline, is also required, but should not repeat the institutional statement. A maximum of 8,000 words, for units of up to FTE is permitted; every additional 10 FTE allows a further 800 words. c. In assessing these sections together, all Main Panels say they will use evidence in the institutional-level template to inform the equivalent unit-level sections. Main Panels A, B and C will equally weight each of the four sections; Main Panel D will weight People slightly higher at 30%, and Income etc at 20%. 11. Submission System / format

5 a. Institutions will submit via a web-based submission system. A pilot version will be released in autumn 2019 and a final version in January b. Journal articles and conference contributions must include a DOI to enable the REF team to source these from publishers; a DOI or URL must be provided for any supplementary material published with it. c. Where the REF team cannot source the journal article or conference contribution with its DOI, and for all output types, institutions must provide an electronic copy where this is available. d. In all other cases, institutions must supply a physical output or appropriate evidence. e. Outputs may include multiple items that represent it e.g. a portfolio, but these cannot be a mixture of physical and electronic formats. f. Template documents supplied for impact and environment narratives will be supplied in Word format, but must be converted to PDF for uploading. These must use a minimum 11pt Arial font, 2cm margins and single line spacing. 12. A Survey on Submission Intentions will be run in autumn 2019 to gather information about: a. the likely volume and UoA of staff carrying significant responsibility for research, to be cross-checked with the HESA return; b. the main areas of research and impact, and likely volume of work, to be included in each submission c. the likely volume of work to be submitted in languages other than English. 13. The following dates and deadlines apply: a. Detailed arrangements for data verification and audit to be published in summer b. Deadline for responses to the Survey on Submission Intentions and applications for small submission exceptions, December c. Final version submission system available, January d. Deadline for requests for removal of the minimum requirement, March e. Staff census date, 31 July 2020 f. Deadline for submissions, 12pm on Friday, 27 November g. Deadline for submission of full details of pending outputs and evidence corroborating impact, 29 January h. Publication of outcomes in December i. Publication of further reports and feedback early in Guidance on Codes of Practice 14. HEIs are required to develop a Code of Practice which explains: a. the Code in the context of other institutional E&D policies, and developments since the REF 2014 equivalent; b. Explains how the Code is to be communicated to staff c. Explains how the institution will identify staff with significant responsibility for research, including differences in UoA-level practice where applicable d. Explains how the institution will determine whether staff meet the definition of an independent researcher

6 e. Explains how the institution will select outputs for return to REF 2021, including applying reductions enabled by individual staff circumstances. 15. This will include, inter alia, a. The methods used for consultation during development of the Code, and the outcomes of that consultation; b. The outcomes of Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out in respect of the Code s policies for identifying staff with significant responsibility for research, determining independence, and selecting outputs. c. The methods used for communications, both consultative and for providing staff with the final version of the Code, including with staff absent from work, use of accessible formats, etc. d. Processes for the (ideally centrally-managed) disclosure, assessment and monitoring of individual staff circumstances (disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, additional paternity and adoption leave) which may have led to an individual s research output being constrained and may lead to a unit requesting a reduction in the total output requirement; and how such circumstances will be taken into account where no reduction is being requested; e. Support for fixed-term and part-time staff, including contract researchers, in relation to equality and diversity; f. Processes for staff to make appeals against the decisions made under the provisions of the Code of Practice g. The identification, procedures and processes for the appointment of designated staff and their roles; h. The membership and process of formation of committees and other groups at any level with designated REF responsibilities, and their roles; i. Provision of equality and diversity training (ideally REF-tailored), expected levels of understanding, training schedules etc, for all designated staff and committee members. 16. A template for the Code of Practice has been provided. 17. The deadline for submission of Codes of Practice is 12pm on Friday 7 June Codes will be reviewed by EDAP, which will advise the relevant funding bodies on approval. Approved Codes will be published, provisionally in December 2019, at which point they come into force. If institutions find exceptional need to make significant changes to their Code after approval they may do so, providing a revised version to the REF team. Final version Codes will be collected from all submitting institutions in early 2021, for publication with submissions in Institutions are required to submit the final version of their EIAs after the submission deadline, covering the final submission. EDAP will use these to assess the overall process but not individual institutions. Institutions are recommended to publish their final EIA. Dr. Tim Brooks (RIDO) 23 July 2018

7