Presentation on theme: "Main Panel A: Subpanels and Chairs A1: Clinical Medicine - Christopher Day, Newcastle University A2: Public Health, Health services and Primary Care -"— Presentation transcript:
Main Panel A: Subpanels and Chairs A1: Clinical Medicine - Christopher Day, Newcastle University A2: Public Health, Health services and Primary Care - Jonathan Nicholl, University of Sheffield A3: Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy Hugh McKenna - University of Ulster A4: Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience - Glyn Humphreys, University of Birmingham A5: Biological Sciences - Ole Petersen, Cardiff University A6: Agriculture, Veterinary and Food Science - Robert Webb, University of Nottingham
Unit of assessment descriptors and boundaries Main panel A recognises that the UOAs do not have firm or rigidly definable boundaries, and that aspects of research are naturally interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary or span the boundaries between individual UOAs, whether within the main panel or across main panels. Research on pedagogy or medical or veterinary education will be submitted in UOA 25 (Education) and research on medical ethics to UOA 32 (Philosophy). Applied research which conforms to the UOA descriptor may be submitted in UOA 2 (Public Health, Health Services and Primary Care) and UOA3 (Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy).
Multiple submissions Guidance on submissions: institutions may exceptionally (and only with prior permission from the REF manager) make more than one submission (multiple submissions) in the same UOA. Sub-panel 3 considers that there is a case, based on the nature of the disciplines covered for multiple submissions in its UOA. Institutions encouraged to structure submissions using research groups, noting that there is no expectation that submissions will necessarily comprise a single coherent body of research. Sub-panels will use the written qualitative feedback to institutions to highlight individual research groups of particular note.
Assessment criteria: outputs Original research findings Research reports Evidence synthesis, including systematic reviews, analyses, meta-analyses, metasyntheses Review articles or text books and similar scholarly works only where they add a significant new perspective Research-based case studies Methodological and theoretical work Technology appraisals.
Co-authored/co-produced outputs Institutions may list co-authored outputs only against individual members of staff that made a substantial research contribution to the output. For all sub-panels, no additional information is required about the author’s contribution to co-authored outputs where either: 1) Fewer than 6 authors or 2) 6 or more authors but submitted member of staff against whom the output is listed is identified as either lead or corresponding author (regardless of the number of authors). 3) Where the submitted member of staff is not identified as lead or corresponding author; affirmation that substantial contribution has been made to the research by submitted individual..
Outputs Quality of outputs being assessed and that neither the order of authorship nor the number of authors will be considered important in the assessment of quality. Main panel will give equal weighting to individual and collaborative/team efforts. Most favourable impression of research gained when each co- authored output is listed only once. Co-authored outputs from substantial research reflecting collaboration within the institution may exceptionally be listed against a maximum of two members of staff in a submission. A justification must be provided irrespective of the number of co- authors.
Double-weighted outputs Exceptional cases for which combined scale of academic and intellectual input considerably greater than norm limiting capacity of an individual researcher produce four outputs e.g. monographs. The sub-panels will consider such outputs to be double- weighted i.e. for it to count as two outputs. Supporting statement to justify the claim.
Citation data All sub-panels within Main Panel A will make use of citation data as an indicator of academic significance to inform the assessment of output quality. Only one element of judgements; used as positive indicator of the academic significance of research output. Sub-panels will use citation data only where provided by the REF team
Impact: Case Studies The impact of research within Main Panel A is broad. Benefits to one or more areas of economy, society, culture, public policy and services, health, production, environment, international development or quality of life, whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally. Impacts manifested to individuals, organisations, communities, regions, and other entities; impacts on products, processes, behaviours, policies, practices; and avoidance of harm or the waste of resources. Information will be provided on characteristics when preparing case studies. Evidence that is verifiable
Impact: Case Studies Case studies must include references to one or more key research outputs that has underpinned the impact. A case study will be eligible for assessment only if the sub-panel is satisfied that the underpinning research is predominantly of at least two star (international) quality: threshold.