Output Quality for REF (unofficial) Steve Williamson FREng IC - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
output quality for ref
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Output Quality for REF (unofficial) Steve Williamson FREng IC - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 04, 2024 23 likes •125 views

Output Quality for REF (unofficial) Steve Williamson FREng IC Graduate 1970, PhD 1973 Lecturer, Aberdeen University 1973-81 Senior Lecturer/Reader, Imperial College 1981-89 Professor, University of Cambridge 1989-97

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Output Quality for REF

(unofficial) Steve Williamson FREng

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • IC Graduate 1970, PhD 1973
  • Lecturer, Aberdeen University 1973-81
  • Senior Lecturer/Reader, Imperial College 1981-89
  • Professor, University of Cambridge 1989-97
  • Technical Director Brook Hansen 1997-2000
  • Professor/Head of School, UMIST/Manchester University

2000-2009

  • Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research, University of Surrey

2009-2013

  • RAE2008 and REF2014 Panel Chair
  • RAE2014 and RAE2021 Hong Kong Panel Chair
  • Gentleman of leisure 2013 -
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Outputs

  • Originality
  • Rigour
  • Significance
slide-4
SLIDE 4

REF2014 Panel Criteria and Working Methods

  • Part 2B : Main Panel B criteria
  • Section B2: Assessment criteria : outputs
  • Criteria and level definitions
  • Interpretation of generic criteria
  • Paragraph 66

‘Where appropriate to the output type, sub-panels may consider editorial and refereeing standards as part of the indication of rigour’

slide-5
SLIDE 5

My Interpretation

  • Outputs published in the top journals have a

better chance of a high score

  • Thompson Reuters WoS

– Engineering, Electrical and Electronic

  • 257 Titles
  • 59 in Q1 to choose from

– Materials Science, Multidisciplinary

  • 271 Titles
  • 68 in Q1 to choose from
  • Not all IEEE Transactions are Q1 !
slide-6
SLIDE 6

REF2014 Panel Criteria and Working Methods

  • Part 2B : Main Panel B criteria
  • Section B2: Assessment criteria : outputs
  • Output types
  • Paragraph 34

‘ . . sub-panels will accept the submission of review articles only where they contain a significant component of unpublished research or new insights’

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Significance I

  • Part 2B : Main Panel B criteria
  • Section B2: Assessment criteria : outputs
  • Criteria and level definitions
  • Interpretation of generic criteria
  • Paragraph 65

‘Significance will be understood as the extent to which the work has exerted, or is likely to exert, and influence on an academic field or practical applications’

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Significance II

  • Part 2B : Main Panel B criteria
  • Section B2: Assessment criteria : outputs
  • Additional information on outputs
  • Factual information about significance
  • Paragraph 55

‘Sub-panels 11,12,13,14, and 15 consider that the nature of their disciplines is such that the significance

  • f the output may not be evident within the output
  • itself. They therefore invite factual information to be

provided (max 100 words) that could include, for example, additional evidence about how an output has gained recognition, led to further developments,

  • r has been applied. They would welcome the

inclusion of relevant and verifiable information for all

  • utputs wherever available’
slide-9
SLIDE 9

FACT!

  • The same output, submitted by authors from

two different universities, did not always achieve the same score.

  • The only difference was in the 100 word

statement

  • Conclusion: Time spent on the 100-word

statement is time well-spent.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Fact

  • In the School of EEE, for RAE2008 we reviewed

and discussed every single 100-word statement in the presence of the author and the relevant research group members.

  • EEE achieved it’s highest-ever ranking in

RAE2008