Open meeting on the REF2021 consultation Tuesday 18 September 2018 Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Open meeting on the REF2021 consultation Tuesday 18 September 2018

Agenda Welcome and introduction Malcolm Jackson, Faculty APVC for Research and Impact Faculty of Health and Life Sciences REF2021 preparations Overview of the REF2021 consultation Bob Cooney, Research Policy Manager

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences REF 2021 Preparations: - what has been achieved so far - key next steps

REF 2021 preparations - achieved so far Reading programme: migration to the new system (800 papers) Outputs read (circa 1050), external review of selected outputs in most Institutes Affiliate researchers nominations reviewed Data cleansing – contractual issues Impact: stocktake of priority (REF2021) impact case studies Environment: initial mapping of data, analysis of REF2014 4* environment statements UoA Modelling: developing an submission strategy for HLS Governance structures: FREF

Impact Impact case study database (Elements) & 2017 stocktake – Large number of Impact Case Studies from across Faculty identified, narrowed to 54 for 2021 and 48 for 2028 Impact Accelerator Fund 2017-18 £78,666 directed to 11 impact case studies to strengthen development Initial ranking of impact case studies for submission to REF 2021 Detailed review of ranked impact cases for REF 2021 submission - targeting support and application to reserved HEIF “specialist support fund” £150k Specialist Support Fund secured - recruitment of 5 fixed term Faculty Impact Officers based in HLS Institutes happening now!

Modelling HLS REF submission Preferred UoAs assigned to individuals by Institutes December 2018 6 scenarios identified & updated with 2018 reading programme data Scenarios included: Preferred scenario presented to University Research Strategy Group and Senior Management Team. Modelling will continue to be updated for next years’ reading programmes, publication of final guidance and will remain under review. Scenario 1: Primary UoAs as identified by Institutes Scenario 2: UoA mapping as per REF 2014 submission: no UoA3, small UoA5 (all of EEB from IIB) Scenario 3: Primary UoAs as identified by Institutes but with no UoA5: Biochem and FCG--> UoA1, EEB --> UoA7 Scenario 4: Primary UoAs as identified by Institutes but with larger UoA3 and no UoA5: Biochem and FCG--> UoA1, EVS and most of MSK II --> UoA3, EEB --> UoA7 Scenario 5: Primary UoAs as identified by Institutes but with UoA3 --> UoA1 Scenario 6: Primary UoAs as identified by Institutes but with UoA3 --> UoA1 and EEB from UoA5 --> UoA7

REF Modelling

Next Steps: Institutional University response to REF Consultation on submission guidance Code of Practice – defining processes to support independent researcher selection, individual circumstances and equality and diversity considerations Mock REF audit! - mid 2019

Next Steps: Faculty Reading programme Impact Environment Governance Initial review of independent researchers (Code of Practice will define institutional process) T & S nominations review 2018 reading programme completion (Elements/Tulip) Impact Target 50% of ICS for project resource – x 5 fixed term impact officers 2018 stocktake Environment December 2018 stocktake (content TBC) Governance Establishment of UoA steering groups (x5), integration with FREF

REF 2021 Guidance on Submissions & Panel Criteria: Consultation Leadership Forum: REF REF 2021 Guidance on Submissions & Panel Criteria: Consultation RISC July 2018

Overview Consultation Timetable – Faculty input, institutional response Eligibility – ‘significant responsibility’ & ‘independence’ Equality & Diversity – Individual Circumstances (!) and Environment Statements Open Access – 95% Outputs – co-authors, additional information Impact – continuing case studies, indicators Environment – Institutional & Unit Level Code of Practice

Consultation Timetable Activity Responsibility Timescale Draft REF Guidance and Criteria circulated to Faculty R&I Teams along with timetable for consultation response Research Policy 27th July 2018 Faculty R&I Teams to distribute to local areas for comment / response Faculty R&I Teams From 27th July 2018 Period of consultation (may include Faculty led workshops or events at L1,L2,L3) Faculty R&I Teams with Research Policy input August – 20th September 2018 Discussion of issues at September RISC RISC September 2018 Consultation responses collated by Faculty R&I Teams for submission to Research Policy 20th - 26th September 2018 Response to consultation drafted 26th September -2nd October 2018 Response circulated to RISC for further comment 2nd October 2018 Response circulated to SMT PVC R&I 5th October 2018 Discussed at SMT 8TH October Any changes arising from SMT meeting to be incorporated into final draft and UoL response submitted to Research England Research Policy / PVC R&I 15st October 2018

Eligibility All staff with a ‘significant responsibility’ for research will be submitted. Plus R Only ‘independent researchers’ - indicators provide greater freedom? ‘self-directed’ PI / Fellowship (list) / CoI on external grant / leading group / significant input… For UoL all T&R = ‘significant responsibility’?? Independence – we will need to explain how we determine via CoP, what mechanisms? Misc – Clinical academics (primary employer = 1FTE), staff in non-UK discrete units not eligible (consultation) , data required on former staff where outputs included

Equality and Diversity Key focus and linked throughout – Ind circs, CoP, Environment Statements Individual Circumstances REF14 approach (political?) Straight-forward and complex Reduce number of outputs required (0.5), remove minimum of one Reduction to unit overall output requirement Process – vague so far, ‘sufficient detail to make a judgement’, template?, applications by March 2020, outcomes known pre-submission Internal process – disclosure, CoP, central panel, who collects data? Specific E&D focus at Unit level – selection and distribution of outputs, wellbeing, returners, carers, part-time………

Open Access 95% compliance of in-scope outputs with the OA policy (i.e. compliant or with an acceptable exception) Compliance measured at UoA not HEI level Lots of guidance…..but in practice?? Library attending Glasgow event in September – HEIs and REF Team a link to another IR is acceptable. 95% rate unlikely to be up for consultation Clarity around the auditing procedure – how will they be testing the 95%? More information on way, further meetings to look at this in more detail - audit seems to be about an institutions processes, so it is important that we document our processes. Gold OA exception still apply if you’ve deposited the link/file within the 90 days

Outputs Co-authorship and contribution Panel A – statement required (picklist) for >10 authors (6 in REF14) Panel B – statement required (100 words) for >25 authors (10 in REF 14) Panel criteria on * ratings useful for internal assessment IDS identifier Unit level additional information e.g. UoA4 activity cost UoA11&12 descriptors (100 words) Outputs not in English Online first or pre-prints from 2013 eligible (as long as not REF14) Portability – for staff who have left, must submit version available at time here?

Impact Template changes – up-front information, an extra page (but word counts the same?)! Continuing cases To be flagged Panel A vs B,C&D – but no ‘assessable difference’? ‘Describe significant and developing impact’ is the same for all? More detailed guidance on ‘reach’, ‘significance’ and PE not there? But indicators much better and prompts within templates etc. good Underpinning research – body of work Security clearance – request in advance and only justified if assessors can participate in rest of process Standardising qualitative indicators – style guide?

Environment Environment standard data – as previous Unit Level ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT CALCULATOR 1 page = 500 words 19.99 16 8000 29.99 17.6 8800 39.99 19.2 9600 49.99 20.8 10400 69.99 22.4 11200 70 24 12000 90 25.6 12800 110 27.2 13600 130 28.8 14400 150 30.4 15200 Environment standard data – as previous Unit Level Environment narrative Different weightings in Panel D (Very) specific guidance on each section Still narrative based but with use of indicators – not ‘mandatory, checklist or exhaustive’. But we should use indicators where we can to evidence claims Huge page limit!??? Institutional Contextual and not scored

Code of Practice Intro Significant Responsibility for Research Link to other policies & strategies, Fairness, Communication Significant Responsibility for Research Only needed if not submitting all eligible staff in one or more UoA Independence Criteria, communications, approvals, committees, training, appeals, EQIA Output selection Fair and transparent, approvals, committees, training Disclosure of circumstances, procedures for confidentiality EQIA Approved by the relevant funding body, with advice from the Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel (EDAP) – submit for consideration on 7th June 2019.

Code of Practice Dates subject to confirmation Activity Responsibility Timescale Guidance and Template for CoP received from Research England – circulated to RISC Research Policy From 27th July 2018 Discussion of issues and plan for CoP development at September RISC RISC September 2018 Discussions and consultation on CoP content and relationship with UoL policies and principles Research Policy to lead with input from RISC and other key stakeholders October –January 2018 First draft of CoP reviewed at RISC January 2018 Final draft approved by RISC / SMT RISC / PVC R&I February2018 CoP circulated to staff for consultation February - March– 2019 Collation of responses – re-drafting and governance approval (RISC / SMT) Research Poicy / PVC R&I April - May 2019 UoL CoP submitted to Research England Research Policy / PVC R&I 7th June 2019 Dates subject to confirmation

Faculty Research and Impact Office contacts Responses to consultation Sophie Archard (sophie.archard@liverpool.ac.uk) Outputs and reading programme Impact Rob Ashworth (rob.ashworth@liverpool.ac.uk) Environment Rosie Corbin (r.corbin@liverpool.ac.uk)