1. 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

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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
£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!

6. Modelling HLS REF submission
Preferred UoAs assigned to individuals by Institutes December 2018
6 scenarios identified & updated with 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

7. REF Modelling

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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………

15. 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

16. 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?

17. 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?

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. Faculty Research and Impact Office contacts
Responses to consultation
Sophie Archard
Outputs and reading programme
Impact
Rob Ashworth
Environment
Rosie Corbin