1. REF2021: Code of Practice Consultation

2. REF2021- Lord Stern Review
November Minister of Universities and Science commissioned an Independent review of the Research Excellence Framework.
Stern review principles include:
Reduce the burden and cost
Reflect full spectrum of UK research
Promote inclusivity and avoid divisiveness
Reduce ‘gaming’ and ‘transfer markets’
Promote interdisciplinary research
Widen impact
Capturing the research environment: Reward institutional investment (non-portability)
Peer Review (metrics)
Effects on research and careers (no short termism)
Report published in July 2016
Consultation on review by Funding Body in December 2016
Decision announced Sept and Nov 2017
REF2014 cost £246 million

3. REF 2021 Staff eligibility:
Decisions:
All staff with a significant responsibility for research are to be submitted to the REF
Core eligibility criteria
academic staff with a contract of employment of 0.2 FTE+ on the payroll on the census date (31 July 2020
primary function is to undertake either ‘research only’ or
‘teaching and research’
conducting independent research
institutions are required to implement a process to determine ‘significant responsibility for research’

4. Staff eligibility: Definition:
Staff with significant responsibility for research are those:
For whom explicit time and resources are made available to engage actively in independent research and that it is an expectation of their job role

5. Consultation – Submissions and panel criteria
REF published draft Guidance on Submissions and Panel criteria in July 2018 followed by consultation
Final Guidance on Submissions and Panel criteria released end Jan 2019
Guidance on Submissions
Approach to take account of staff circumstances
Additional clarification on research independence and significant responsibility for research
Eligibility of staff in non-UK based units
Eligibility of outputs by former staff made redundant
Version of output returned (former staff)
Returning co-authored outputs more than once in same submission
Tolerance band for open access
Word limit for institutional level environment statement

6. Consultation - panel criteria & working methods
Research independence
Co-authorship statements
Double weighting
Continued impact case studies
Increased focus on equality and diversity in environment
Working on developing Edinburgh Napier CoP to adhere to new guidance

7. Code of Practice:
All institutions are required to provide a Code of Practice covering the following:
Policy and procedures for identifying staff with significant responsibility for research (only necessary for HEIs with units that do not submit 100% of Category A staff)
Clear justification / evidence for why someone is not significantly responsible for research
Policy and procedures for determining whether staff meet definition of an independent researcher
Policy and procedures for fair and transparent selection of outputs, including staff circumstances
Approved by Scottish Funding Council with advice from the Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel (EDAP). 
Submission of Code of Practice due 7th June 2019

8. Significant responsibility for research
Definition of SRR at Edinburgh Napier
All Category A eligible staff members on a teaching and research contract, who have normally received a research allowance of at least 0.2FTE per FTE per year during the REF period with associated research objectives (pro rata for part-time staff or minimum of 0.1FTE research allocation)
Transparent and auditable through University WAM system and MyContribution
Staff who have left / retired in the period may have an eligible period in which case can use outputs from their eligible period.

9. Workload associated with research activity
Possible evidence for significant responsibility for research
Research pathway (Academic Appointment and Promotion Framework)
Expect min 0.2FTE research allocation per FTE with associated research objectives
Other Pathways
Possible research allocation of 0.2 FTE with associated research objectives
PI on a ‘significant’ grant in the REF period
Research allocation as specified on the grant with associated grant objectives
Supervising a research degree in the REF period
Research allocation for supervising research students

10. Implications of WAM based approach
Important to allocate appropriate allowances for agreed research objectives
Must be recorded accurately on WAM system
for years 17-18, 18-19, 19-20
Schools must consider Equality and Diversity issues in the allocation of work across the school.
Clear and transparent process in schools related to pathways and related objectives.
Clearly this places importance on accurate and appropriate allowances being given for the research responsibilities/objectives set for individuals in the run up to the REF
We will work with Schools to ensure this is achieved.
We must also ensure that allowances for other non-research objectives are allocated similarly.
These must not be recorded as research time but rather as ‘other’ time or some kind of ‘teaching or support’ time depending on the activity.

11. Independent Researchers
For the purposes of the REF, an independent researcher is defined as:
An individual who undertakes self-directed research, rather than carrying out another individual’s research programme.
ENU considers any one of the following criteria to be an appropriate reflection of research independence:
leading or acting as principal investigator or equivalent on a substantial externally funded research project
holding an independently won, competitively awarded fellowship where research independence is a requirement
leading a research group or substantial or specialised research work package
All staff on research contracts at grade 6 and 7 will be assessed against Edinburgh Napier’s research independence criteria
Based on the suggested, possible indicators of research independence in the REF guidance on submissions.

12. Output Selection
The REF2021 guidance on submissions advises that category A eligible staff members can be submitted with a min 1 and max 5 outputs.
Edinburgh Napier will select the highest quality outputs for submission which satisfy the above irrespective of individual authors
There will be a four stage approach to output assessment:
self-assessment of all research outputs
independent peer-assessment all research outputs scoring 2* high or above in step 1. by two colleagues in the respective School;
independent assessment of all research outputs scoring 2* High and above in step 2. by an external reviewer.
NB where the resulting scores are diverse a second external reviewer may be appointed.
Assignment of a final considered score following agreement by UoA moderation panel meeting consisting of internal and external moderators.

13. Equality and diversity in REF 2021
Funding bodies are committed to supporting and promoting equality and diversity in research careers.
Many reasons why an excellent researcher may have fewer or more outputs attributable to them in an assessment period.
It is not expected that all staff members would be returned with the same number of outputs.
REF expect that the flexibility offered by decoupling individuals and outputs will be reflected in institutions’ expectations of individual researchers.
Funding bodies have put in place processes to recognise the effect that an individual’s circumstances may have on their productivity.

14. Staff Circumstances
Staff who have been deemed significantly responsible for research will be invited to complete a form whereby staff can declare any circumstances.
this is voluntary, it does not have to be completed by the staff member.
Individuals can request to be exempt from the minimum of one research output
will not be submitted for exemption unless they have consented to declare circumstances voluntarily.
The process of declaration will be managed centrally between HR and RIO to ensure
consistency across the six schools and all UoAs
confidentiality of the data
The Dean of Research & Innovation will determine compliance for requesting removal of the minimum of one output for any individual
UoA output reductions may be requested where a UoA is disproportionately affected by cumulative effect of staff circumstances
To support and promote equality and diversity in research, measures have been put in place to recognise individual circumstances that may affect research productivity.

15. Removing requirement of min. one output
Where an individual has not been able to produce an eligible output
AND
Any of the following circumstances apply within the period 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2020:
overall period of min. 46 months from research due to one of more of the applicable circumstances
circumstances equivalent to 46 months or more absence from research, where circumstances set out in paragraph 160 apply (such as mental health issues, caring responsibility, long-term health conditions) or
two or more qualifying periods of family-related leave.
NB: If an individual has an output (of any quality) they cannot be exempt from minimum one submission

16. Unit circumstances
Reductions can be requested for UoAs based on cumulative effect of circumstances in the UoA
If the unit has been disproportionately affected by equality-related circumstances to the extent that flexibility of decoupling is not an effective solution
Small unit with high proportion of staff with circumstances
Disciplines where fewer outputs are traditionally published (e.g. those where monograph is the disciplinary norm)
Would not expect to see, for example, large unit with >100 staff seeking reduction of 2 outputs (unless linked to min. one removal request)

17. Equality Impact Assessments
It is important the CoP does not introduce discriminatory practices within the University.
Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) will be conducted by the HR Inclusion team and RIO at key points in the run up to the REF2021 submission on:
Mini-REF
Final Code of Practice
Identifying Staff as Significant responsible for research
Determining research independence
The selection of outputs
The EIAs will specifically look at the implications of utilising the CoP to identify staff for submission to REF in terms of protected characteristic groups.

18. E&D Training
The University needs to ensure that its REF procedures do not discriminate unlawfully against protected characteristics.
Equality and Diversity training will be provided to staff involved in the application of the REF CoP criteria.
Only staff who have attended the E&D training will be allowed to undertake discussions relating to identification of staff with SRR and allocation of research time.

19. Appeals ENU has established a REF-specific appeals process.
It is hoped that any issue relating to the identification of staff with significant responsibility for research and allocation of research time or independence of research will be resolved at local level through informal discussion.
If the issue cannot be resolved at local level staff have the right to appeal directly to the University REF Appeals Panel.
The University REF Appeals Panel members will be independent to any previous REF decision making related to the individual.

20. Questions/Comments

21. Applicable circumstances
Early career researchers
Cat A eligible staff who started their careers as independent researchers on or after 1 August 2016
Secondments or career breaks outside HE
At least 12 months
Family-related leave
Statutory maternity leave or statutory adoption leave taken substantially during the period 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2020, regardless of the length of the leave.
Additional paternity or adoption leave, or shared parental leave lasting for four months or more, taken substantially between 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2020.
Junior clinical academics
clinically qualified academics still completing clinical training in medicine or dentistry and have not gained a Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) or equivalent prior to 31 July 2020

22. Applicable circumstances
Circumstances equivalent to absence
Disability: defined in the ‘Guidance on codes of practice’, Table 1.
Ill health, injury, or mental health conditions.
Constraints relating to pregnancy, maternity, paternity, adoption or childcare that fall outside of – or justify the reduction of further outputs in addition to – the allowances set out in Annex L.
Other caring responsibilities (e.g. caring for an elderly or disabled family member).
Gender reassignment.
Other circumstances relating to the protected characteristics listed in the ‘Guidance on codes of practice’, Table 1, or relating to activities protected by employment legislation.

23. Applying reductions Step one Step two Step three Step four
Determine where any request to remove min. of one output is required, apply reduction of one
Determine reductions applying to individual staff (up to 1.5) and sum these across unit
Add reductions from step one and apply rounding to give total for reduction
Ensure request does not reduce output pool below required min of one
Step two
Step three
Step four

24. Worked example Min of 1 required for 29 staff
Unit of 32 staff
24.3 FTE
Outputs required:
24.3 x 2.5 = 60.75
Rounding
61 outputs
3 individs with 46+ months circs and no outputs
Request removal of min of 1
Reduction = 3
3 x circs equating to 46+ months = 4.5
2 x 1 family leave period = 1
2 x ECRs (btw 1/8/16 and 31/7/17) = 1
Unit reduction = 6.5
Total reduction = 9.5
Rounding = 10
Min of 1 required for 29 staff
22 further outputs required
51 outputs

25. Decision not to request unit circs
Worked example
Unit of 18 staff
14.5 FTE
Outputs required:
14.5 x 2.5 = 36.25
Rounding
36 outputs
1 individ with 46+ months circs and no outputs
Request removal of min of 1
Reduction = 1
1 x circs equating to 46+ months
3 x ECRs (btw 1/8/16 and 31/7/17)
Min of 1 required for 17 staff
18 further outputs required
35 outputs
Decision not to request unit circs

28. Mini-REF 2018 Outcome
The mini-REF exercise considered fourteen units of assessment for submission to REF2021
Pre the panel meetings it was decided no submission will be made for Unit of Assessment 23 – Education
An individual report for each Unit of Assessment has been written highlighting key findings and recommendations
No report for UoA 23
Recommendation not to submit for UoA 26 or UoA 23
DoR or UoA Leader will be able to discuss outcomes
Unit of Assessment Leaders and DoRs are now responsible for developing and implementing targeted actions plans
The summary outlines each UoA by REF-Readiness using RAG status

29. Mini-REF 2018 summary – UoA Readiness

30. Staff Significantly Responsible for Research
291 mini-REF
273 Jan 2019
269 FTE mini-REF
259 FTE Jan 2019

31. Number of outputs available for eligible staff by score for UoAs
FTE Jan 19
Number of outputs available for eligible staff by score for UoAs
Percentage of outputs available for eligible staff by score for UoAs

32. FTE + Output profile for UoAs Jan 2019
FTE Jan 19