This document provides strategies for improving researchers' publications for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) audit at ScHARR. It begins with an overview of ScHARR's REF publication audit results. It then discusses the importance of first authored and ScHARR first authored papers. Profiles of five hypothetical researchers are presented with suggested personal publication strategies for each. Practical suggestions are provided for targeting journals, increasing citations and impact, and using Researcher ID and the White Rose Research Online repository. The document concludes with a brief discussion of how impact will be assessed for the REF.
University of Liverpool Library Researcher KnowHow session 2 of 3 presented by Michelle Maden PhD MAFHEA Postdoc research associate in evidence synthesis at the University of Liverpool on 22nd November 2021.
Essential skills in health research and scientific writingDr Ghaiath Hussein
This presentation is of the training on "Essential Skills in Health Research and Scientific Writing" that was help in Soba Teaching Hospital in Khartoum, in collaboration with the Sudanese American Medical Association (SAMA).
It was a 4 days training given on a rate of one session per week. It was almost all skills-based hands-on training.
Day 1: The theoretical part was an Introduction to the Knowledge Management Cycle and where research fits in this model. The practical part was how to conduct an online review of literature
Day 2: The theoretical part was about the responsible conduct of research, and scientific misconduct, with focus on plagiarism. The practical part included the installation and the use of Reference Manager, including how to import the references found in the LR (given in session 1) in a database in the Reference Manager software.
Day 3: The theoretical part covered the basics of scientific writing in English. The practical part included writing, and re-writing some pieces, using the provided phrasebanks and verbs 'cheat-sheets'.
Day 4 was on the writing for publication, including detailed description of the peer-review publication model and how it works. We also touched very briefly, due to time constraints, to an overview and two examples of ethical issues in research. The practical part included writing an effective cover Letter to the editor, choosing proper manuscript title, and writing an informed consent.
Scientific research and its publication
A process and the research process
Writing and submitting a paper to a journal
Other processes in research
Literagure review
Research design
Qualitative research
Conclusion
The review process
'Understanding and benefiting from the publishing process'
Publishing Connect workshop Lancaster delivered by Anthony Newman, Senior Publisher, Elsevier.
Types of scientific publications
The different types of research papers published
Considerations before writing
Choosing the right journal
Writing using correct language
The structure of the manuscript
The submission and review procedure
Author responsibilities: publishing ethics and plagiarism
How to use information resources as a tool for authors (Scopus)
Slides shared with the permission of the speaker.
University of Liverpool Library Researcher KnowHow session 2 of 3 presented by Michelle Maden PhD MAFHEA Postdoc research associate in evidence synthesis at the University of Liverpool on 22nd November 2021.
Essential skills in health research and scientific writingDr Ghaiath Hussein
This presentation is of the training on "Essential Skills in Health Research and Scientific Writing" that was help in Soba Teaching Hospital in Khartoum, in collaboration with the Sudanese American Medical Association (SAMA).
It was a 4 days training given on a rate of one session per week. It was almost all skills-based hands-on training.
Day 1: The theoretical part was an Introduction to the Knowledge Management Cycle and where research fits in this model. The practical part was how to conduct an online review of literature
Day 2: The theoretical part was about the responsible conduct of research, and scientific misconduct, with focus on plagiarism. The practical part included the installation and the use of Reference Manager, including how to import the references found in the LR (given in session 1) in a database in the Reference Manager software.
Day 3: The theoretical part covered the basics of scientific writing in English. The practical part included writing, and re-writing some pieces, using the provided phrasebanks and verbs 'cheat-sheets'.
Day 4 was on the writing for publication, including detailed description of the peer-review publication model and how it works. We also touched very briefly, due to time constraints, to an overview and two examples of ethical issues in research. The practical part included writing an effective cover Letter to the editor, choosing proper manuscript title, and writing an informed consent.
Scientific research and its publication
A process and the research process
Writing and submitting a paper to a journal
Other processes in research
Literagure review
Research design
Qualitative research
Conclusion
The review process
'Understanding and benefiting from the publishing process'
Publishing Connect workshop Lancaster delivered by Anthony Newman, Senior Publisher, Elsevier.
Types of scientific publications
The different types of research papers published
Considerations before writing
Choosing the right journal
Writing using correct language
The structure of the manuscript
The submission and review procedure
Author responsibilities: publishing ethics and plagiarism
How to use information resources as a tool for authors (Scopus)
Slides shared with the permission of the speaker.
Episode 6 : How to write a Great Research Paper and Get it Accepted by a Good Journal From title to references From submission to revision
Who are publishers and what do we do?
Practical tips before you write
What makes a good manuscript?
The article structure
The review and editorial process
Author ethics
Researcher KnowHow session presented by Michelle Maden PhD MA FHEA, Postdoc research associate in evidence synthesis, Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group
Taylor & Francis: Author and Researcher WorkshopSIBiUSP
Workshop para Autores e Pesquisadores 2015
Data: 08 de outubro de 2015
Horário: 10:30 - 14:30
Local: Auditório do INRAD - Instituto de Radiologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da USP - Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, s/nº – Rua 1 – Cerqueira César – São Paulo, SP.
Scientific research and publication walk throughRoshni Mehta
Humble effort made in the form of this presentation will assist in the accomplishment of exploratory as well as result-oriented research studies. I shall feel amply rewarded if this slides proves helpful in the development of genuine research studies.
As a scientist, we must write, and, as an experimentalist, writing while you work strengthens your research. Writing a paper can be an integral part of observational science. Our manuscript can even be a blueprint for our experiments.
10 SIMPLE STEPS TO BUILDING A REPUTATION AS A RESEARCHER, IN YOUR EARLY CAREERMicah Altman
A talk sponsored by the MIT Postdoctoral Association with support from the Office of the Vice President for Research.
In the rapidly changing world of research and scholarly communications researchers are faced with a rapidly growing range of options to publicly disseminate, review, and discuss research—options which will affect their long-term reputation. Junior scholars must be especially thoughtful in choosing how much effort to invest in dissemination and communication, and what strategies to use.
In this talk, I briefly discuss a number of review of bibliometric and scientometric studies of quantitative research impact, a sampling of influential qualitative writings advising this area, and an environmental scan of emerging researcher profile systems. Based on this review, and on professional experience on dozens of review panels, I suggest some steps junior researchers may consider when disseminating their research and participating in public review and discussion.
Researcher KnowHow session presentation by Sarah Roughley Barake, Scholarly Communications Librarian at the University of Liverpool.
Covers:
*What to consider when choosing a journal
*Tools to help you choose
*Where NOT to publish
This is based on a presentation given before the Gwalior Association of Management Teachers and Researchers . This is based on experience as a researcher, reviewer and a reader .
Researcher KnowHow session presented by Judith Carr, Research Data Manager and co-ordinated by Gary Jeffers, Research Data Officer at University of Liverpool Library.
How do we find our way through the forest of requirements, options, exemptions, variations and special cases that institutions and individuals have to handle with Open Access policies? The Open Access policy environment is growing more complex and more demanding in its needs, and now more significant in its implications.
Peer review: much discussed, much covered, much maligned, but what do researchers really think of the system at the heart of scholarly research? Is it as broken as we are sometimes led to believe? How much of a discrepancy is there between expectation and reality? How do views differ between authors, editors and reviewers? Or across the disciplines – humanities, social sciences, science and medicine?
Building on previous research by the Publishing Research Consortium and Sense about Science, Taylor & Francis conducted a global survey and focus groups in 2015 with authors, reviewers and editors around the world. This webinar will present a snapshot of the findings, particularly focusing on views on the purpose of peer review, perceptions on ethical issues, opinions on different models of review, and on the ‘mechanics’ of the system.
Episode 6 : How to write a Great Research Paper and Get it Accepted by a Good Journal From title to references From submission to revision
Who are publishers and what do we do?
Practical tips before you write
What makes a good manuscript?
The article structure
The review and editorial process
Author ethics
Researcher KnowHow session presented by Michelle Maden PhD MA FHEA, Postdoc research associate in evidence synthesis, Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group
Taylor & Francis: Author and Researcher WorkshopSIBiUSP
Workshop para Autores e Pesquisadores 2015
Data: 08 de outubro de 2015
Horário: 10:30 - 14:30
Local: Auditório do INRAD - Instituto de Radiologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da USP - Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, s/nº – Rua 1 – Cerqueira César – São Paulo, SP.
Scientific research and publication walk throughRoshni Mehta
Humble effort made in the form of this presentation will assist in the accomplishment of exploratory as well as result-oriented research studies. I shall feel amply rewarded if this slides proves helpful in the development of genuine research studies.
As a scientist, we must write, and, as an experimentalist, writing while you work strengthens your research. Writing a paper can be an integral part of observational science. Our manuscript can even be a blueprint for our experiments.
10 SIMPLE STEPS TO BUILDING A REPUTATION AS A RESEARCHER, IN YOUR EARLY CAREERMicah Altman
A talk sponsored by the MIT Postdoctoral Association with support from the Office of the Vice President for Research.
In the rapidly changing world of research and scholarly communications researchers are faced with a rapidly growing range of options to publicly disseminate, review, and discuss research—options which will affect their long-term reputation. Junior scholars must be especially thoughtful in choosing how much effort to invest in dissemination and communication, and what strategies to use.
In this talk, I briefly discuss a number of review of bibliometric and scientometric studies of quantitative research impact, a sampling of influential qualitative writings advising this area, and an environmental scan of emerging researcher profile systems. Based on this review, and on professional experience on dozens of review panels, I suggest some steps junior researchers may consider when disseminating their research and participating in public review and discussion.
Researcher KnowHow session presentation by Sarah Roughley Barake, Scholarly Communications Librarian at the University of Liverpool.
Covers:
*What to consider when choosing a journal
*Tools to help you choose
*Where NOT to publish
This is based on a presentation given before the Gwalior Association of Management Teachers and Researchers . This is based on experience as a researcher, reviewer and a reader .
Researcher KnowHow session presented by Judith Carr, Research Data Manager and co-ordinated by Gary Jeffers, Research Data Officer at University of Liverpool Library.
How do we find our way through the forest of requirements, options, exemptions, variations and special cases that institutions and individuals have to handle with Open Access policies? The Open Access policy environment is growing more complex and more demanding in its needs, and now more significant in its implications.
Peer review: much discussed, much covered, much maligned, but what do researchers really think of the system at the heart of scholarly research? Is it as broken as we are sometimes led to believe? How much of a discrepancy is there between expectation and reality? How do views differ between authors, editors and reviewers? Or across the disciplines – humanities, social sciences, science and medicine?
Building on previous research by the Publishing Research Consortium and Sense about Science, Taylor & Francis conducted a global survey and focus groups in 2015 with authors, reviewers and editors around the world. This webinar will present a snapshot of the findings, particularly focusing on views on the purpose of peer review, perceptions on ethical issues, opinions on different models of review, and on the ‘mechanics’ of the system.
Beverley Miranda and Nena Nera provided this educational presentation that helps breathe new life into your toastmaster club with tips, tools and techniques to help build membership.
These are the slides on the Introduction to quantitative research course presented to the MBE (Master of Bioethics) students at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University. It is focused on bioethics and in particular writing research rather than doing research. Please note that the sources of the slides are added as a link at the bottom of the slide itself.
A 2-day workshop on how to publish your research. It includes a full and detailed explanation of the publication process and many technical details needed by the health researcher to publish his/her research.
It was delivered to the staff of the Northern Area Armed Forces Hospital in Hafr Albaten City, Saudi Arabia (13-14 Nov. 2019)
International Workshop on
"Information Management Tools for Academic and Research Libraries", All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society’s
College of Engineering, Pune – 1
18 to 22 December 2017 Lars Bjørnshauge
Agenda
- Research Assessment and Reward systems – an obstacle for the implementation of Open Access
- Questionable publishers – and how to detect them
- Improving the quality of journals published in India
- Whitelists!?
International Workshop on "Information Management Tools for Academic and Research Libraries", All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society’s College of Engineering, Pune – 1
18 to 22 December 2017 Lars Bjørnshauge
Basic statements about the current Scholarly Communication System.
The promises of Open Access!
Where are we now with Open Access?
DOAJ and what we do!
A Beginner's Guide to Writing a Research Article , For Post Graduate Trainees and Senior Registrars , defining basic structure of an article or a publication. Describes different components of a publication or a Research
Want to move your career forward? Looking to build your leadership skills while helping others learn, grow, and improve their skills? Seeking someone who can guide you in achieving these goals?
You can accomplish this through a mentoring partnership. Learn more about the PMISSC Mentoring Program, where you’ll discover the incredible benefits of becoming a mentor or mentee. This program is designed to foster professional growth, enhance skills, and build a strong network within the project management community. Whether you're looking to share your expertise or seeking guidance to advance your career, the PMI Mentoring Program offers valuable opportunities for personal and professional development.
Watch this to learn:
* Overview of the PMISSC Mentoring Program: Mission, vision, and objectives.
* Benefits for Volunteer Mentors: Professional development, networking, personal satisfaction, and recognition.
* Advantages for Mentees: Career advancement, skill development, networking, and confidence building.
* Program Structure and Expectations: Mentor-mentee matching process, program phases, and time commitment.
* Success Stories and Testimonials: Inspiring examples from past participants.
* How to Get Involved: Steps to participate and resources available for support throughout the program.
Learn how you can make a difference in the project management community and take the next step in your professional journey.
About Hector Del Castillo
Hector is VP of Professional Development at the PMI Silver Spring Chapter, and CEO of Bold PM. He's a mid-market growth product executive and changemaker. He works with mid-market product-driven software executives to solve their biggest growth problems. He scales product growth, optimizes ops and builds loyal customers. He has reduced customer churn 33%, and boosted sales 47% for clients. He makes a significant impact by building and launching world-changing AI-powered products. If you're looking for an engaging and inspiring speaker to spark creativity and innovation within your organization, set up an appointment to discuss your specific needs and identify a suitable topic to inspire your audience at your next corporate conference, symposium, executive summit, or planning retreat.
About PMI Silver Spring Chapter
We are a branch of the Project Management Institute. We offer a platform for project management professionals in Silver Spring, MD, and the DC/Baltimore metro area. Monthly meetings facilitate networking, knowledge sharing, and professional development. For event details, visit pmissc.org.
Jill Pizzola's Tenure as Senior Talent Acquisition Partner at THOMSON REUTERS...dsnow9802
Jill Pizzola's tenure as Senior Talent Acquisition Partner at THOMSON REUTERS in Marlton, New Jersey, from 2018 to 2023, was marked by innovation and excellence.
Resumes, Cover Letters, and Applying OnlineBruce Bennett
This webinar showcases resume styles and the elements that go into building your resume. Every job application requires unique skills, and this session will show you how to improve your resume to match the jobs to which you are applying. Additionally, we will discuss cover letters and learn about ideas to include. Every job application requires unique skills so learn ways to give you the best chance of success when applying for a new position. Learn how to take advantage of all the features when uploading a job application to a company’s applicant tracking system.
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Modern Society.pdfssuser3e63fc
Just a game Assignment 3
1. What has made Louis Vuitton's business model successful in the Japanese luxury market?
2. What are the opportunities and challenges for Louis Vuitton in Japan?
3. What are the specifics of the Japanese fashion luxury market?
4. How did Louis Vuitton enter into the Japanese market originally? What were the other entry strategies it adopted later to strengthen its presence?
5. Will Louis Vuitton have any new challenges arise due to the global financial crisis? How does it overcome the new challenges?Assignment 3
1. What has made Louis Vuitton's business model successful in the Japanese luxury market?
2. What are the opportunities and challenges for Louis Vuitton in Japan?
3. What are the specifics of the Japanese fashion luxury market?
4. How did Louis Vuitton enter into the Japanese market originally? What were the other entry strategies it adopted later to strengthen its presence?
5. Will Louis Vuitton have any new challenges arise due to the global financial crisis? How does it overcome the new challenges?Assignment 3
1. What has made Louis Vuitton's business model successful in the Japanese luxury market?
2. What are the opportunities and challenges for Louis Vuitton in Japan?
3. What are the specifics of the Japanese fashion luxury market?
4. How did Louis Vuitton enter into the Japanese market originally? What were the other entry strategies it adopted later to strengthen its presence?
5. Will Louis Vuitton have any new challenges arise due to the global financial crisis? How does it overcome the new challenges?
Personal strategies for improving your ref publications
1. Personal Strategies for Improving
your REF Publications
Andrew Booth, Director of
Information, ScHARR
2. Outline
• ScHARR REF Audit
• Personal Publication Strategies
–Ian De Pendent
–Matt O'Dologhy
–Ann Hahnze
–Di Kotomos
–Enid Chiate
• Profiles and Practical Suggestions
• REF Impact Case Studies and Individual
Researchers
3. ScHARR REF Audit
• REF Census – Publications (2008-2009)
and Potential Impact Stories (2009-
backwards)
• 116 staff returned forms
• 18 staff (maternity leave, sick leave, non-
compliant) estimated returns (Mendeley
database of 1201 ScHARR publications)
at
• 24 queries regarding eligibility/status
Total = 158 individuals
4. How Are We Doing?
• 67/158 [42%] had 4+ publications
• 9/158 [6%] had 3 publications
• 13/158 [8%] on track for 4 publications
Total 89/158
• Caveat: No consideration of Eligibility↓, no
consideration of Quality of Journals↓, no
consideration of Congruence↓ but also no
concession for WTE↑
5. That’s Good Isn’t It?
• Yes, but……
……ScHARR research typically conducted
as multidisciplinary teams
……Individual papers can only be submitted
once
……Therefore we are most interested in
First Authored Papers and ScHARR-
First Authored Papers
6. Because….?
• First Authored Papers – Not affected by
collaborators from other institutions or by
staff joining ScHARR (11 staff have 4 first
authored papers; 41 have 2+)
• ScHARR-First Authored Papers – Not
affected by ScHARR staff higher up “pecking
order” (35 staff have 4 papers as first or only
ScHARR author)
• Also interested in congruence between
papers and any Unit of Assessment, but
particularly HSR.
7. And What About Citations?
• Average number of citations was just
under 2
/3 of a citation (Mean = 0.63;
median = 0; mode = 0)
• Highest total was 59 citations from 6
papers (including 33 for one pre-ScHARR
paper)
• Most higher impact papers had clinical
leadership/involvement and published in
clinical journals
8. Current Verdict
• We work hard, we are prolific, we have a
good environment and perform well for
esteem (as for RAE)
• However we appear to privilege quantity
over quality and have very few high impact
papers (hence Power Rating for RAE)
• Is our work good enough?
• Do we aim high enough? ?
• Are we in our comfort zone? ?
10. What Can We Do Collectively?
• Target “better” journals
• More strategic discussion re: Authorship
• More partnerships with Clinicians
• More synthesis of Methodology across
similar projects
• More follow up work/secondary data
analysis looking at Impact of Primary Work
(c.p. DEC evaluation)
11.
12. ISI Health Care Sciences and
Services [1-10]
Only 7 of these
would get into Top
20 for Medicine
15. ScHARR’s Top 20 Papers during
REF Period so far
• BMJ (2)
• Lancet (2)
• Quality & Safety in Health
Care
---------------------------
• Medical Decision Making
• Pharmacoeconomics (2)
• Value in Health
---------------------------
• 8 with ScHARR 1st
Author
• 3 RCTs, 2 SRs, 3
Outcomes, 4 Cost Effect.
• Acad Emerg Med
• Age and Ageing
• Am J Kidney Diseases
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Breast Cancer Research &
Treatment
• Diabetic Medicine
• Eye
• European Journal of Cancer
• J Clin Endocr & Metabol
• Nephrology Dialysis
Transplantation
21. Personal Publication Strategy?
• Aim to Improve One or More of Your
Journals (from Citation List) or Papers
• Write with Clinician
• Counts Double!: Better Paper for You,
Releases One to ScHARR Colleague
• Look at Co-Authoring as Second Author
with ScHARR Colleague
• Mentoring
22. Profile – Matt O’Dologhy
• Typically Health
Economist, Modeller,
Statistician or Info
Scientist
• Involved in Many
Projects, some
Clinician-led
• 3-4 Publications,
none as First Author
23. Personal Publication Strategy?
• Second-Authored Papers with Non-
ScHARR Clinician
• First-Authored Papers (Perhaps as
PI/Project Manager)
• 1-2 Methodology Papers Synthesising
Findings from Multiple Projects
• Aim to get Methodology Papers Open
Access (BMC/White Rose)
24. Profile – Ann Hahnze
• Two or Three Papers
in Peer Reviewed
journals
• May be PI on One or
More Projects
• Spending More Time
“Doing” than Writing?
25. Personal Publication Strategy?
• Aim to Produce More Papers [1 or 1.5
per Writing Week)
• Try to “Trump” Existing Papers by
Publishing in Higher Impact Journals
• Protected Time
• Team Writing
• Peer Support
26. Profile – Di Kotomos
• Quite new to HSR
• Mixed portfolio –
disciplinary (e.g.
Psychology, IS, or Social
Science) and topical
publications
• E.g. Reviewer with
previous early stage
research or Info
Specialist also involved in
reviews
• Potentially split across
Units of Assessment
27. Personal Publication Strategy?
• Need to Prioritise One Half of Portfolio
• Discuss with Line Manager and Unit of
Assessment Leads
• Then Focus on Replacing Current Papers
as First ScHARR Author with those that fit
Target UoA
• May Release Papers to Other Co-Authors
• Also Contribute to Team Writing for
General Career Progression
28. Profile – Enid Chiate
• Recent entrant to
HSR
• Mainly working on
one project at a time
• One or two papers as
member of research
team
29. Personal Publication Strategy?
• Identify Sub-Project or Re-analysis as
Potential First Author Paper
• Target a Mid-to-Higher Range Journal
• Take advantage of Mentoring, Writing
Club and Publications Training Courses
• Continue to Participate in Team Writing
• Discuss Timescale for REF Eligibility with
Line Manager
32. The Journal Finder
• Research Gate's The Journal Finder.
Research Gate - scientific network to connect
researchers, find research partners, collaborate with
scientists and explore journal articles.
• With more than 20,000 print Journals, Journal Finder
helps discover which journals are most relevant to your
research.
• Copy and Paste your article's abstract into
their semantic search algorithm, and it will identify
relevant journals.
• Includes information on publication restrictions as well as
more information (e.g. impact factor) about journal.
45. If at first you don’t succeed…planning
for contingencies
Use the “stable” approach
E.g. BMJ -Annals of Rheumatic Diseases
Sexually Transmitted Infections Archives of
Disease in Childhood Thorax British Journal
of Ophthalmology British Journal of Sports
Medicine Injury Prevention Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health
Emergency Medicine Journal Occupational
and Environmental Medicine Gut Tobacco
Control Heart Journal of Clinical Pathology
Journal of Medical Ethics Journal of Medical
Genetics Journal of Neurology,
Neurosurgery and Psychiatry Medical
Humanities Postgraduate Medical Journal
Quality & Safety in Health Care
46. Recycle, recycle, recycle
• Three strikes and
you’re out! – try up to
three times
• Take on comments
and suggestions
(especially suggested
target journals)
• Consider slicing or
repackaging.
47. Researcher ID
• Accessed through University Library -> Web of
Science -> Additional Resources
• Creates Unique Identifier for you
• You can link yourself to your own Web of
Science Publications
• You then have permanent profile for your
outputs
• Updated for all stored publications
• Add each year’s publications as you go
54. WRRO: go for it
• Increase visibility & citation impact
• URLs for long term links
• Supports Open Access
– Required by funders
– Free to all
• WRRO FAQs at
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/docs/faq.html
55. Contacts
• Marion Tattersall
Research Development Librarian
Generic research support issues
m.tattersall@sheffield.ac.uk phone: 27281 Mon-Thurs
• Anthea Tucker
Science Engineering and Medicine Liaison Team
assistant
WRRO practicalities
a.l.tucker@sheffield.ac.uk phone:27318
• Rachel Proudfoot
White Rose Repository Officer
WRRO policy and development issues
r.e.proudfoot@leeds.ac.uk tel: 0113 343 7067
56. Final Reminders
• Target Appropriate Journals
• Aim to Trump Existing Journal Portfolio
• Plan Strategically – Your “liberated”
publications may swell someone else’s
portfolio!
• Peer Support/Mentoring etcetera
• Remember: It is not Authorship (or even
necessarily First Authorship) But It Is First
ScHARR Authorship that is Critical
58. Overall excellence
Outputs Impact Environment
60%?? 25%??
↓
15%??
NB. Impact replaces Esteem; Some Esteem subsumed
within Environment
59. Assessing impact
• “Significant additional
recognition where
institutions and
researchers have built
on excellent research
to deliver
demonstrable benefits
to the economy,
society, public policy,
culture or quality of
life”.
60. Principles of Impact
• Impact of submitting unit as whole, not
impact of individual researchers.
• Submissions to provide examples of
research-driven impact from unit’s broad
portfolio of work.
• Impacts to be underpinned by high-quality
research. (Focus of REF on research
excellence, with additional recognition for
strong impact built on that excellence).
• Because of time-lags, impact must be
evident during REF assessment period,
but research may have been undertaken
earlier (up to 10-15 years earlier).
61. Assessment of Impact
• Qualitative information informed by appropriate
indicators.
• Submissions to include:
– Impact statement, generic template for submitted
unit as a whole. Breadth of interactions with research
users and overview of positive impacts that became
evident during assessment period.
– Case studies, generic template to illustrate specific
examples of impact and how unit contributed to them.
• One case study/5-10 members of staff.
• Case studies and impact statement to include
appropriate indicators of impact, to support
narrative evidence.
62. Draft template for
impact case studies
1. Title of case study.
2. Describe/provide evidence of specific benefit or impact
(maximum 500 words), including:
– nature of impact; how far-reaching and significant benefits are
– appropriate indicators of impact (from “common menu”)
3. Explain how unit’s research activity contributed or led to
impact (maximum 500 words), including:
– outline of underpinning research, when undertaken and by
whom
– efforts made by staff to exploit or apply findings or secure impact
through research expertise
– any other significant factors or contributions to impact.
4. Provide references to:
– key research outputs that underpin the impact
– external reports or documents, or contact details of a user, to
corroborate impact or unit’s contribution
63. How Impact
Assessed
• Assessed by REF expert sub-panels, comprising
people who understand research in discipline and
its wider use and benefits supplemented with
research users to assess impacts.
• Sub-panels to assess impact against criteria of:
– reach (how widely impacts have been felt);
– significance (how transformative impacts have
been).
• Subprofile - proportion of impacts meeting each
level on five-point scale. Four-star (‘exceptional’)
rating - ‘ground-breaking, transformative or of
major value, relevant to a range of situations’.
64. Sample Indicators: Improved
patient care or health outcomes
• Research income from NHS and medical research
charities
• Measures of improved health outcomes (for example, lives
saved, reduced infection rates)
• Measures of improved health services (for example,
reduced treatment times or costs, equal access to
services)
• Changes to clinical or healthcare training, practice or
guidelines (including refs in relevant docs such as National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines)
• Devt of new/improved drugs, treatments or other medical
interventions; nos. of advanced phase clinical trials
• Participation on health policy/advisory committees
• Changes to public behaviour (for example, reductions in
smoking)
65. Impact in the Context of the REF
• King’s College, Friday 25th
June 2010
• Report of Impact Pilots
• All Powerpoints Available from:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iss/support/ref/june2010
HEADLINES:
• Measuring Impact is feasible but time-
consuming
• Final weighting not decided yet
• Requires skills in marketing, media, journalism
• Can’t really handle “negative impact”
66.
67.
68. The Way Forward
• We have asked Staff to Nominate Impact Stories
• Combined List shared with Research Committee
• At RC Meeting tomorrow initial list of 8 Case
Studies will be compiled
• Approximately 3 Case Studies will be worked up
over Summer (Pending fuller guidance)
• We will be working with PIs and Team Members
• We will probably need to develop 2:1 but
valuable for other purposes e.g. Marketing