PROFESSORIAL BANDING
DISCIPLINARY NORMS AND EXPECTATIONS
Department/School: Psychology
Discipline (only if different to the above):
Psychology including Health & Clinical Psychology
Faculty: Science
I confirm that the discipline norms detailed below were completed following consultation with Professors in the
department, and have been verified by an external advisor.
Completed by: Prof John Wann
Date: 28/07/201428/07/2014
RESEARCH
1.
What are the top-rated forms of research work in your discipline? E.g. journal articles, monographs,
editions
Research is normally published in journal articles with typically two or more authors. Outputs can also take the
form of books, patents, or reports for public/private bodies.
2.
What lesser publications such as encyclopaedia entries, programme notes, reviews etc. command
respect in your discipline?
In general book chapters are not seen as major contributions to the discipline. The status of review articles depends
on the nature of these. Major review articles in leading journals that are seen to advance theory are very well
regarded as are systematic reviews. Invitations to contribute to encyclopaedia are evidence of esteem and such
outputs can be influential.
3.
What are the top-rated outlets for dissemination of research in your discipline? E.g. major publishers, top
journals?
Due to the breadth of themes within the discipline there is some access to high impact generic science journals
particularly for the neuroscience or medically-related subfields (e.g., Nature, Science, PNAS, Current Biology,
Lancet, JAMA, BMJ), but most of our work is published in specialist Psychology or Neuroscience or Medicallyrelated journals. There are literally hundreds of these more specialist journals that are suitable for disseminating
psychological research (e.g., there are 502 journals listed under the ISI category of Psychology, a further 296 listed
under Neuroscience, a further 50 listed under Ophthalmology, etc), though naturally, some of these journals publish
higher quality work than others. Overall, there is a very strong relationship between impact factor and perceived
prestige of outlet, although this is complicated by differences across sub-disciplines, with top Psychology journals
tending to have lower impact factors than top Neuroscience or Medical journals. The top international journals in
Psychology typically have impact factors above 2.0, and we would normally regard those with impact factors above
2.5 as strong outlets. These thresholds would be correspondingly higher in Neuroscience (perhaps 3.5 and 4.0,
respectively), and may be different again in Medically-related journals. The key point is that while impact factors
can be indicative of quality, there is a need to examine them in the context of individual sub-disciplines. One further
critical point is that while a high impact factor usually indicates a high-quality journal with high standards of peer
review, many articles of substantial impact are published in journals that do not meet these thresholds (see
penultimate section on impact).
4.
What are the guiding assumptions about sole authorship, PI status, percentage contribution, joint
editorship, etc.?
The author order model varies between sub-disciplines. Sole authorship is unusual. Sometimes the ‘lead’ author is
named first, but many PIs give priority to their PGRs and PDRAs as first author, and thus place themselves into
another position. In Neuroscience journals the PI often becomes last author (signifying ‘senior’ author), though in
typical Psychology journals the PI may then go into the next available position (e.g., 2nd author). But this is not a
hard-and-fast rule and other indicators like who was the PI for the supporting grant or who is flagged as the
corresponding author trumps minor variations in author order. Some very large collaborative projects (e.g. drug
trials) may require a spread of experts and to be listed as a contributory author is indicative of a strong contributory
role, as there may also be a large number of other contributors listed in small print at the end of an article. A
number of journals do now include statements of respective author roles. For these reasons it is very important that
applicants indicate when a co-author was a PGR/RA/PDRA, or that they were the PI on the supporting grant, and
also highlight any significant author role that is acknowledged in the paper to offset the possibility of a
misconception by the panel.
5.
What is the volume of productivity over what sort of timeline that might signify a.) a reasonable
performance; b) a positive step-change for a professor in your discipline?
It is very difficult to establish a norm for the number of papers per year. Perhaps two papers per annum could be
regarded as a ‘norm’ for a well-established researcher. However, this figure would need to be very carefully
interpreted against the strength of the output/journal, because targeting the higher quality journals may well reduce
the volume of output. In our departmental guidance for developing research portfolios, we advise colleagues to
target quality rather than quantity. There may, however, be other considerations for sponsored research where
there may be an imperative to publish data of clinical or commercial importance.
6.
What are the top-rated funding sources for Research in your discipline? E.g. ESRC, AHRC, Leverhulme
Trust, Wellcome etc.
Generally BBSRC, EPSRC, ESRC, MRC, NIHR (in no particular order, depending on area of research). Also EU,
overseas agencies, Royal Society, British Academy, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme, and other charities, industrial
funding and from government departments. Since the introduction of full economic costing, RCUK, NIHR-FEC
programmes and FEC research projects from industry are favoured as the first point for funding.
7.
What levels of funding would you regard as indicating a) a reasonable performance; or b) high
performance in your discipline?
With the Psychology Dept our annual ‘target’ for each member of staff is that they submit applications that would
yield ~£55K/pa of rolling research income. This is benchmarked against other top Psychology Departments, though
we would hope that professors bring in more than this in order to offset rather smaller awards to more junior staff.
Funding amounts in our department normally fall anywhere between small awards from industrial or charity
sources (e.g., British Academy small grants scheme up to £7.5K) to larger grants from charities or research councils
(e.g., three-year FEC project grants, ca. £350k, or Charity grant at ca. £175k). For all kinds of funding, it is important
to consider the funding brought directly to RHUL. For awards involving cross-discipline partners (e.g. clinicians,
engineers etc) a large initial award may be split across different centres. For NIHR in particular, there is often a
requirement for a Clinical Trials Unit to be involved and a lead NHS organisation to be nominated. As RHUL cannot
fulfil either of these roles, it means that funds for these functions are allocated elsewhere even if the lead
investigator is an RHUL academic. The role of staff in attaining large collaborative bids is to the credit of RHUL,
science, external partners such as the NHS and the community in general, so their role as a PI or CI in enabling that
should be taken into account. Staffing costs across the sub-disciplines are very similar so levels of award can be
considered comparable. But in some areas, awards can be as a result of high consumables or equipment costs. But
those larger awards are bringing considerable benefit to the college and raising our per capita income. Consistent
funding above target is clearly regarded as going beyond ‘routine funding’.
8.
Are invited lectures/ conference plenaries/ conference organization/ visiting professorships/ particularly
significant in your discipline, and in what sort of ranked order?
Invited keynotes at major international conferences are highly prestigious. Other keynotes at symposia, workshops
or conferences in specific areas are valued but the impact/importance varies. Applicants should differentiate
between invited keynotes at major international conferences and invitations to participate in symposia on subtopics at a major conference. Conference organisation is valued and applicants might be encouraged to make a case
for the importance of the event. Visiting professorships can be important indicators of esteem.
9.
What awards, prizes and honours if any, are significant in your discipline?
Awards by the British Psychological Society (BPS) and sections of the BPS are of importance as are awards by other
organisations in which psychologists play a part. Appointments with funding bodies (e.g. membership of RCUK or
NIHR Panels;) or institutional advisory boards are also very good indicators of esteem. Fellowships are very rare but
highly prestigious.
10.
Membership of which learned societies or other discipline-specific groups or organizations carry weight in
your discipline?
The BPS with its Divisions (eg Clinical Psychology, Neuropsychology, Health Psychology) and Sections (eg Social
Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Psychotherapy) is the society in the UK representing psychologists and their
diverse interests. However, not all academics working in psychology departments are psychologists qualified for
graduate membership of the BPS. For example, neuroscientists from many different backgrounds (eg biology,
mathematics) may have membership of neuroscience societies. Many psychologists are members of learned
societies in other disciplines central to their research interests. There are hundreds of such societies and the weight
carried by each is not predicted by any rule of thumb eg some small societies with membership by invitation can be
more prestigious than societies with tens of thousands of members.
In addition editorial appointments can be important indicators of esteem. However, there is a substantial difference
in workload and prestige between being an associate editor (who makes decisions about manuscripts) and being a
member of an editorial board who would sometimes only be contracted to do a certain number of reviews per year.
Nevertheless membership of an editorial board is a mark of the esteem in which the individual is held in that field.
TEACHING
1.
How many PhD students (in FTEs) would you expect to be supervised by Professors in your discipline?
It is not viable to put an FTE number on this as the availability of studentship support is a major factor. But postgraduate throughput is something that is relevant, and a good indicator of a healthy research portfolio, in particular
if supported by competitive external funding. International invites for PhD examination does confirm that the
researcher is internationally recognized.
2.
What are the norms for contribution by Professors to Masters courses and their validation in your
discipline?
We don’t think there are any ”norms” that need to be established on this.
3.
What are the norms for Professors devising and teaching undergraduate courses in your discipline?
It is normal for most Professors to be engaged in teaching at either UG or PGT level and to have input to courses
close to their area of specialism. The amount of input would typically be balanced against the research or
admin/leadership load they were also undertaking.
EXTERNAL ENGAGEMENT AND IMPACT
1.
What are the norms for external involvement in your discipline within University of London, UK
universities, international HE activity etc. that indicate a) a reasonable performance; b) a high
performance?
There are major intra-discipline variations in the potential for external involvement, but high quality research
published in top journals does often lead to some external exposure (e.g. through the media). The pathway to that
developing into external involvement is often difficult and this is best considered on a case by case basis.
2.
What particular forms of external academic, and where relevant non-academic, impact would indicate an
acceptable and high performance in your discipline?
There are major intra-discipline variations in the potential for “Impact” – which is almost always linked to original
research. In general there is a large body of theory driven research in Psychology that has limited impact at the
point at which it is undertaken or published. Applied Psychology that has clearer external impact is sometimes
published in lower impact journals due to its incremental nature or because it is not directly focussed on theory. But
it may be making a strong contribution to knowledge transfer and benefitting end-users. There is therefore often
an uneasy balance between high academic impact and external impact, and instances where both are achieved are
rare in Psychology. There are many researchers who make seminal and world-leading contributions to
Psychological Theory without those resulting in non-academic impact. Equivalently there can be researchers who
are making significant inroads in terms of knowledge transfer, but this is not necessarily accompanied by ‘hits’ in
the top-tier journals. This should be heeded when assessing performance under External Engagement & Impact
3.
What kind and volume of Third Stream activity (including patents, spin-outs, outreach, knowledge
transfer, consultancies, cultural interventions etc.) of benefit to the College etc. would be important in
your discipline?
Third stream activity can arise in a variety of forms, it is difficult to specify particular forms as being of higher value,
this is best judged on a case by case basis with an eye to the ‘benefit to the College’ or to the Dept in terms of
finance and/or academic reputation.
LEADERSHIP AND ENHANCEMENT
1.
What forms of leadership, internal and external, command respect in your discipline?
The key leadership roles internally tend to be dictated by external drivers related to research performance, student
recruitment (UG, PGT or PGR), student satisfaction etc., but it is unfair and unwise to highlight particular roles.
Leadership is demonstrated by attainment, whereby an academic staff member took on a role and improved the
Departments performance and that is best presented on a case by case basis with comment by the HoD or Dean as
appropriate. Outside of departmental issues, there can be other significant badges of research leadership such as
REF panel membership, or membership of a panel for RCUK or another major funding body. Chair of the BPS or
Experimental Psychology Society (EPS), or similar committees can also be seen as a mark of respect in the
discipline.
2.
What forms of enhancement, such as support of improved performance by colleagues, command respect
in your discipline?
It is expected that all Professors can undertake mentoring duties for early career staff. Serving as a referee within
the promotion or appointment process at other universities is a mark of external recognition. Clinical & Health
trained Psychologists may fulfil important roles for enhancement by advising on competencies, training courses and
assessment criteria in their field.