1. REF 2014 Computer Science and Informatics update Jim Briggs 24 th October 2012 1REF CSI update Oct 2012

2. Contents REF background What will the REF assess? REF sub-panel 11B Mock REF 2REF CSI update Oct 2012

3. REF BACKGROUND 3REF CSI update Oct 2012

4. REF background REF = Research Excellence Framework Replaces Research Assessment Exercise (last 2008) Very similar to RAE, except: –reduced number of panels –aim for more consistency between panels –some panels will use citation data to assess outputs –all panels will assess non-academic impact –esteem no longer included as a distinct element –reduced data requirements Used to determine the "QR" element of university funding 4REF CSI update Oct 2012

5. REF timetable December 2014: results published 31 December 2013: cut-off for publications 29 November 2013: final date for submissions 31 October 2013: census date for staff 31 July 2013: cut-off date for impact December 2012: survey of submission intentions January 2012: publish panel criteria July 2011: publish assessment framework 5REF CSI update Oct 2012

6. WHAT WILL REF ASSESS? 6REF CSI update Oct 2012

7. Each unit of assessment submits: REF 1a/b/c: Staff details REF 2: Research outputs (normally 4 per member of staff) REF 3a/b: Impact template and case studies (at least 2) REF4a/b/c: Environment data (PhDs, external income) REF 5: Environment template 7REF CSI update Oct 2012

8. Output of the REF process Result expressed as a profile –what proportion of research is "4*" (world-class), "3*" (internationally excellent), "2*" (international), "1*" (national) and "unclassified" –in 2008 our profile was 5/20/40/30/5 (GPA 1.90) –slightly stronger on outputs than environment and esteem In 2014, results weighted according to: –Outputs 65% –Impact 20% –Environment 15% 8REF CSI update Oct 2012

9. REF PANEL 11B 9REF CSI update Oct 2012

10. Membership of panel 11B Prof Steve Furber, Manchester (Chair) Prof Andrew Adamatzky, UWE Prof David Benyon, Edinburgh Napier Prof Alan Burns, York Prof Anthony Cohn, Leeds Prof Jon Crowcroft, Cambridge Prof Anthony Finkelstein, UCL Mr Martin Jackson, Twin Technologies Ltd Prof Marta Kwiatkowska, Oxford Prof Ursula Martin, QMUL Prof Tom McCutcheon, DSTL Prof Alexandra Poulovassilis, Birkbeck Prof Tom Rodden, Nottingham Prof Stan Scott, Queen's University, Belfast Prof Nigel Shadbolt, Southampton Prof Qiang Shen, Aberystwyth Prof Morris Sloman, Imperial (Deputy Chair) Prof Iain Stewart, Durham Prof Joseph Sventek, Glasgow Prof Josie Taylor, OU Prof Chris Taylor, Manchester Prof Bonnie Webber, Edinburgh 10REF CSI update Oct 2012

11. Scope of panel 11B The UOA includes the study of methods for acquiring, storing, processing, communicating and reasoning about information, and interactivity in natural and artificial systems, through the implementation, organisation and use of computer hardware, software and other resources. The subjects are characterised by the rigorous application of analysis, experimentation and design. 11REF CSI update Oct 2012

12. THE MOCK REF 12REF CSI update Oct 2012

13. Plan December 2011 – sent data on 23 staff to 2 external assessors –widely differing assessments May 2012 – sent data on 25 staff to a 3 rd assessor –half-way between the other two Jan/Feb 2013 – send updated data 13REF CSI update Oct 2012

14. Data updating/gathering "REF Data Form" (RDF) Intended: –make it easy for you to keep up to date/refresh from time to time –make it easy for you to resubmit –make it easy for Uni to enter into final REF forms Outputs based on contents of Parade Effort is for you to write about the "significance" of each output 14REF CSI update Oct 2012

15. What is my best paper? Judged on a (holistic) combination of 3 criteria: Originality –the extent to which the output introduces a new way of thinking about a subject, or is distinctive or transformative compared with previous work in an academic field Significance –the extent to which the work has exerted, or is likely to exert, a significant influence on an academic field or practical applications Rigour –the extent to which the purpose of the work is clearly articulated, an appropriate methodology for the research area has been adopted, and compelling evidence presented to show that the purpose has been achieved 15REF CSI update Oct 2012

16. Proxies for quality Journal impact factor –Will NOT be used by REF panels Citations, as measured by –Web of Knowledge (http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/)http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/ –Scopus (http://www.scopus.com/)http://www.scopus.com/ –Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.co.uk/)http://scholar.google.co.uk/ 16REF CSI update Oct 2012

17. Writing about significance 1 "Significance is the extent to which the work has exerted, or is likely to exert, a significant influence on an academic field or practical applications" Guidance says "significance … that is not evident within the output itself" –but even if it is evident, re-iterate it! I asked why not include originality and rigour as well – no real answer but those are more likely to be evident in the output –suggest you re-iterate but be subtle! 17REF CSI update Oct 2012

18. Writing about significance 2 Evidence needs to be succinct, verifiable and externally referenced where appropriate Do not provide citation data –except perhaps "this highly-cited paper …" In most cases, provide in significantly fewer than 100 words Examples from RAE 2008 (albeit different rules) available online 18REF CSI update Oct 2012

19. Suggestions for significance What in the world did/will the output change, and how? Who did you do the work with/for? How did this build on previous work and how will future work build on this? Why does it excite/interest you? When will the impact be made? Who will benefit? How international/world-leading is it? 19REF CSI update Oct 2012

20. THE END jim.briggs@port.ac.uk 20REF CSI update Oct 2012