Professor Phyllis Tharenou Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences ROPE/Track Record Read Instructions to Applicants and Funding Guidelines Professor Phyllis Tharenou Executive Dean Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences 9 October 2012

Strategies to Improve Success 1. Write to the % weight given for each selection criterion: Write to meaning of each selection criterion & its parts: FF candidate (eg ROPE) 40% Project quality (components) 35% Strategic alignment 15% Collaboration/outreach 10% 2. Get assessed by experts in your field Select correct Field of Research codes (6- & 4-digit), keywords, and write 100 word summary to arrive at assessors who are experts on your proposal’s field.

Criterion 1: Future Fellowship Candidate 40% Research opportunity and performance evidence (ROPE) Capacity and leadership to undertake proposed research (Q4 of ROPE) Record of high quality research outputs appropriate to the discipline/s (Q2, Q3, Q5) Evidence of national &/or international research standing (Q3, Q4) Contribution to national and/or international public policy debates and initiatives (need to put somewhere)

ROPE Q1. Details on career and research opportunities in last 5 years (to help ECRs, women) (2 pps) Q2. Recent significant publications in last 5 years Q3. Ten career-best publications (no time limit) Q4. Most significant contributions to Proposal’s research field (3 pps) Q5. Evidence of capacity to conduct high quality, innovative research and national and/or international research standing (3 pps) Q6. Evidence of capacity to build collaborations across industry and/or research institutions and/or with other disciplines (1 page) (4th selection criterion) )

Qs 2 & 3: Pubs Last 5 years & Best 10 Pubs For each pub, give Quality, from published measures Web of Science Ranks of Impact Factors, IFs (can use Scopus) Journal ranks if available (eg WoS IF ranks, accepted published rankings of journals in your field) No. citations (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) Benchmarking eg average cites per paper in your discipline Whether pub came from an ARC grant where you were a C1/P1 typed on same line as the publication. Example Gere, R. 2001. How to get a good ROPE score. Journal of Applied Assessment, 15, 1-2. WoS Rank of Impact Factor (Management) 10/77; 5-year IF 3.6; Cites: Scopus 32, WoS 12, Googlescholar 65; WoS average cites per paper worldwide (Mgt) = 3.

Benchmarking by Cites/Paper Example: Web of Science ISI: Publish no. of citations per paper for your discipline EG: “World” average from WoS is 2 cites/paper for subject category of Management and 3 for Psychology, Then compare to your no. of cites/paper from WoS ISI Web of Science (not include worldwide average) http://library.flinders.edu.au/resources/databases/a-z/w.shtml http://apps.isiknowledge.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/ Other databases calculate equivalent of impact factor ranks eg Scopus: scimagojr.com (does equivalent of impact factors) Rankings published by reputable source eg your professional association (eg on web) , major journal in your field

Other Publications than Journal Articles Book or Book Chapter Give any published reviews eg in a journal or magazine Gere, R. 2010. Review of “Book Title”, Personnel Psychology, 5, 1-2. Give citations eg Scopus, Web of Science, Googlescholar State quality of book publisher. EG Top book publishers in Social, Behav’ral and Economic Sciences: Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Academic Press, Chicago University Press, Columbia University Press, Cornell University Press, Harvard University Press, MIT Press, Princeton University Press, Routledge, Sage Other publishers at next level down, still very good

Benchmarking Citations for Books Academic Discipline No. of ISI citations per book No. of Googlescholar citations per book Business 66 200 Computer Scientist 538 2599 Education 132 797 Political Scientist 62 215 Media studies 110 Linguist 78 518 From Harzing, A. W. (2010-2011). The publish or perish book. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd. http://www.harzing.com/popbook.htm Some measures also corrected for years of opportunity or since PhD.

Q3: Avoid for 10 Career “Best” Publications Best means as recognized by peers on standard measures: Don’t select if you can (may insert later in ROPE) : Textbooks Working papers Reports, Government publications Conference presentations or papers or published abstracts Avoid if you can (can still go in Pubs for Last 5 Years) Books in lesser or unknown presses Book chapters unless can show high quality objectively Chapters in own edited book Lowly ranked journals by Impact Factor or other ranking Australian journals of low rank Pubs’ “in press”/“forthcoming” unless in an outstanding outlet

Q3: Best 10 Publications 30 WORDs on impact or significance of each publication: The substantive argument Why content of this publication is recognized by other scholars as having advanced knowledge in the research field AND Objective, publicly available evidence justifying quality eg No. of citations for this pub (Scopus, WoS, googlescholar) Benchmarking eg no. of cites for this pub. vs average for your field Impact factor rank for journal, other published journal ranks typed straight on at the end of publication to not use the 30 words Reference for published book review (eg Gere, 2010, JAP, 5, 1-2) Awards, prizes (give authors in order on publication, year awarded, name of prize, organization that awarded it)

Q4: Most Significant Contribution to Proposal’s Field Link your specific past research and achievements to the specific field and topic of this proposal: (a) To show your expertise, from your past performance/outputs, to: (a) carry it out and (b) advance this field (b) At the same time, give your level of past performance in this field Give specific, publicly obtainable measures of quality in this field of your performance to show you have advanced knowledge, have done it well, and thus can do it again Start with the specific achievements you are most well known for and for which you can give specific objective evidence, especially where you show top performance

Q5: Capacity to Conduct High Quality, Innovative Research and National &/Or International Research Standing (a) Research outputs other than publications eg Consultancies, patents and policy advice, competitive grants & other research support, major exhibitions, compositions or performances, other professional activities, etc. (b) Give quality/impact of all your research outputs relative to opportunity and discipline expectations on diverse evaluations eg Total citations, h-index (WoS, Scopus, Googlescholar), other index Benchmarking against your discipline eg h-index, no. of cites Evaluation of quality eg Quality of the conference, Prestige of book publisher, Published reviews of books or book chapters, Other public evidence of recognition eg Used by policy makers to change public policy and make new laws; sales; no. of editions etc.

(Q5. Cont’d) Invitations, Honours & awards/prizes, other esteem measures eg Keynote addresses esp. at international conferences Evidence for quality of conference presentations (eg high rejection rate, top international conference, prize/award) Editorial roles & reviewer (also ranks of those journals) Fellowships in learned societies or elected to prestigious bodies External competitive grants International research collaborations No. of PhD completions & where employed now Other measures eg other invitations, prizes/awards

Benchmarking Find publicly available evaluations of your field that list academics in your field or averages for your field on evaluations (eg no. of pubs, cites), often published in journals How do you compare? Are you acknowledged? Calculate your h- or other index from Publish or Perish (Googlescholar) & compare to averages from Harzing (2010-2011) Harzing, A. W. (2010-2011). The publish or perish book. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd. ttp://www.harzing.com/popbook.htm

Q6: Capacity to build collaborations across industry, research institutions, other disciplines Describe various industry, local, state, and/or federal government and/or research institution partnerships been involved with to build new research directions and collaborations. Outline role in helping form these. Outline multi-disciplinary projects been actively involved with and describe role in setting up such initiatives.

The End

ROPE: Q1 – to Help ECRs/women Q1. Career & research opportunities in last 5 years–500 words: No. of years graduated with highest educ. qualification Research opportunities and component in employment situation (eg ECR); Any part-time or un-employment? Role: Research-only, teaching & research, teaching-only, teaching & administration, research & administration, or administration-only, and other roles—% of time in the roles Career interruptions for childbirth, carer’s responsibility, misadventure, or debilitating illness Research mentoring and facilities available to you Any other aspects of career or research opportunities relevant to assessment and not detailed elsewhere eg slowed down your research

Career & opportunities for research in last 5 years Five questions Research opportunities within your employment conditions e.g. teaching or administration load, part-time status, non-research employment or unemployment To help assessors of ECRs and women, esp. in early career, to assess track record taking into account research opportunity and career interruptions Career interruptions for childbirth, carer’s responsibility, misadventure, or debilitating illness; To explain a gap in your track record; Give an end point; Do not list ongoing conditions eg heavy teaching load or admin. Any other circumstances that may have affected the time you have had to conduct and publish research relevant to assessment

What Harms Your ROPE Score? Last 5 Years’ Pubs: Too few publications, none or few recently LAST 5 YEARS’ PUBLICATIONS AND BEST 10 PUBS Textbooks & working papers; conference presentations or abstracts; seminars/workshops; urls; reports, government publications etc. Too few journal articles & no scholarly books; No objective evidence given for quality of publications Omitted or wrong information for any publication Not given authors’ names in order appear on publication or ARC grant Best 10 Pubs Giving mostly journals or books of low rank or reputation or local Giving Conference proceedings or book chapters, unless CPs or BCs are the proven norm for publishing top work in your field

How to Make Answers in RMS Readable Despite your typing them (eg carriage returns), no white space or indents emerge, so answers to qs 1, 4 and 5 are unreadable Split answer to each of Qs 1, 4 & 5 into typed capitalised headings of (A), (B), (C), (D) etc with named themes/categories, and each as a CAPITALISED heading Eg (A) INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION: Give specific information for answers to Qs 4 and 5, not broad or general statements eg Always give years for everything mentioned Give names of associations eg for prizes, conferences Give specific information for publications or grants eg $, all authors in order appear on publication, titles, year For “forthcoming” books, give full information Be brief. Do not write a story

h-Index Values for Social Work Academics For tenure-track faculty at top 10 institutions in U.S. Mean Mdn Conf Interval Assistant prof. 3.97 3.5 3.32, 4.62 Associate prof. 8.59 8.0 7.85, 9.32 Full professor 16.14 14.75 14.83, 17.45 For editorial board members Assistant prof. 4.35 4.0 3.46, 5.24 Associate prof. 7.68 7.0 6.48, 8.88 Full professor 13.82 12.0 12.09, 15.54 Lacasse, J.R., Hodge, D.R., & Bean, K.F.(2011). Evaluating the productivity of social work scholars using the h-Index. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(5), 599-607.