ACE Programme | Research Excellence Framework 11 Feb 2016
1.
Find out what “Output” means in your Unit of Assessment - UoA. (Usually just a paper? A book? A play? A website?) Ask your head of research, line manager etc .
In my field acceptable Outputs are:
2.
How many Outputs might you be expected to submit? (Depends on “Special Circumstances” e.g. ECR status). See page 9-13 of Panel criteria and working methods doc (in ACE resources, under REF), talk to the above people & fill in all or part of the REF2020 output plan . Then decide which of you real and planned Outputs may eligible. (See the draft guide). This will be honed in the meeting. Based on REF criteria, score as many outputs as you wish 1*-4*.
3.
How does your plan look? What are the holes that need to be plugged? What are your main concerns about this plan and about REF in general (to bring up in the workshop)?
I am concerned about:
Page 1 of 3

ACE Programme | Research Excellence Framework
Output 3:
Summary:
Collaborators:
Output 4:
Summary:
Collaborators:
Output 1:
Summary:
Collaborators:
Output 2:
Summary:
Collaborators:
Type:
Planned submission date:
Predicted Score (1-4):
Type:
Planned submission date:
Predicted Score (1-4):
Type:
Planned submission date:
Predicted Score (1-4):
Type:
Planned submission date:
Predicted Score (1-4):
11 Feb 2016
Page 2 of 3

ACE Programme | Research Excellence Framework 11 Feb 2016
*THE DETAILS BELOW ARE OPINIONS OF THE WRITER*

Outputs eligible are those that became publicly available in their final form (e.g. “asap” or
“advance” but not merely “accepted” manuscripts) after 1 January 2014.

Consider all those papers to which you have made a substantial research contribution so not just ones where you are the principal/first author. Definitions below.

Consider any output in your list that may, because the paper is short, score less well on rigour than it will do on originality and significance. For more advice see below

Outputs should ideally include no significant material in common with:
 any output publicly available prior to 1 January 2014; or
 any other output you are submitting to “REF2020”
4* World-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. e.g. excellent citations/y, highlighted by others in reviews, large/extensive work, highly innovative, highly interdisciplinary, answer to long-standing problem, academic impact felt outside own field or very high within field, probably high journal IF. Among the best UK outputs in the field.
3* Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence. e.g. very good citations/y, journal IF medium, highlighted by others in reviews, large/extensive work, innovative, interdisciplinary, affects a lot of researchers.
2* Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour. e.g. journal IF >3, merely excellent research.
1* Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.
Be sure to consider those papers for which you have made a substantial research contribution.
Neither the order of authorship nor the number of authors will be considered important. Once the sub-panel accepts that the author has made a substantial research contribution to the output, the sub-panel will assess the quality of the output taking no further regard of the submitted member of staff’s individual contribution. The quality of each output will be judged on its merits independent of authorship arrangements.
In assessing how “substantial” your contribution I would consider originality & significance as follows. Rigour is less useful here:
Originality : is your contribution a routine one of a kind that you have done many times before or perhaps one that others could have done? Did the collaborators come to you in particular for reasons of your particular expertise, or merely operation ones i.e. you were nearby? Are you the only one with that particular technique/process, or did you invent that technique/process?
Significance : If your contribution were removed what would the outcome be? [Related to the above, what would happen were it done by others?] Here are some points taken from individual UoAs on substantial :
"The author made a substantial contribution either to the conception and design of the study; or to the organisation of the conduct of the study; or to carrying out the study (including acquisition of study data); or to analysis and interpretation of study data."
"The author helped draft the output; or critique the output for important intellectual content"
Page 3 of 3