Presentation on theme: "Implications for strategy Iain Richardson School of Engineering and the Built Environment"— Presentation transcript:
Implications for strategy Iain Richardson School of Engineering and the Built Environment
Overview Publication targets How do we pick staff for submission? Worked example Implications for strategy
Targets for submitted staff Four high quality outputs per submitted staff member What is high quality ? –Rigorous peer review (e.g. top journals; some conferences) –Adventurous and agenda-setting –Makes a demonstrable impact on industry/practice –Fits the story in RA5 Points to note: –Many journals have at least a 2-year lead-in time –Text commentary in RA2 submission may be valuable –Individual staff circumstances can be taken into account
Where to publish ? What is a top journal ? –You should know the best journal(s) in your own subject area.. How hard is it to get published in a particular journal/conference? –This is important because panels will not read every publication –Rigorous peer-review implies a certain standard of quality Quote from a main panel chair: –It doesnt matter whether an article is published in Nature or in an obscure trade publication, its the quality that counts. –Do you believe that ?? Will it be in print by the census date ?
Whats the best strategy in terms of selecting staff ? i.e. given a pool of research staff, each with 4 publications of varying standards, how do we maximise the outcomes of RAE08? maximise funding maximise rating motivate researchers ?
Maximising funding Make a guess about the likely quality profile, based on: –Assessment of staff esteem + output quality –Numbers of research degrees + amount of external funding Make a guess about how funding will be allocated to each star –E.g. assume funding will be weighted towards higher star ratings (2 star and above) Choose list of submitted staff to maximise the product of (quality profile x funding weighting)
Maximising quality rating Make a guess about the likely quality rating of each staff member –With allowances for individual staff circumstances Assume that the headline outcome will be based on the mean quality rating Choose list of submitted staff to maximise the mean quality rating
Motivating researchers Include as many research-active staff as possible in the submission (Easier to justify for early-career staff ??).. But a high RAE rating will pay dividends for future staff retention and recruitment..
Worked example (1) (courtesy of Professor Paul Acarnley) Assume 20 staff have the potential to be returned as Category A researchers Assume that the RAE panels judgement of the quality of these staff members research output is as follows:
Worked example (2) Assume the following multipliers for SHEFC research funding: Assumption (a)Assumption (b) 1*1.00 2*1.55 3*3.07
Worked example (3)
Worked example (4) Note: research income and research degrees awarded are measured per FTE staff.
Implications for strategy Return more staffReturn fewer staff Funding Quality grade Critical mass Staff morale Lower Higher (if we guess right!) BetterWorse Better ? (staff feel valued) Better ?? (staff want a high rating) Higher (up to a point)