Department/School: Computer Science
Discipline (only if different to the above):
Faculty: Science
Discipline
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: Jose Fiadeiro, Head of Department Date: 13/08/2014
Computer Science is a very diverse discipline, which makes it virtually impossible to establish norms or benchmarks.
If one considers the way Mathematics, Physics and Engineering are today inter-related (one could even add
Philosophy), and realise that their separation into autonomous disciplines has happened over five centuries, it is easier to understand why that separation has not taken place within Computer Science, which has barely five decades of existence as a discipline.
The result is that one can find within Computer Science sub-disciplines that are still very close to Mathematics, others which are theoretical in that they study computational structures and languages, and others which focus on the engineering of hardware or software systems. Interdisciplinarity is also becoming more rather than less widespread. For example, bioinformatics intersects with biological sciences, human-computer interaction intersects with psychology, embedded systems intersects with engineering (in some universities, embedded systems can be found in engineering departments), and there is intersection with the arts via multimedia studies, etc.
This diversity is reflected in the research cultures of the different sub-disciplines. Therefore, our answer to the specified questions uses a very broad brush.
Our recommendation is that any form of assessment in relation to performance be done by a panel of experts in the relevant sub-discipline.
RESEARCH
1.
What are the top-rated forms of research work in your discipline? E.g. journal articles, monographs, editions
In Computer Science, the optimum forms of research outputs are articles in refereed journals or in high-quality, selective refereed conferences. However, impact factors of journals or conference rankings are not a proxy for quality and should not be used in a formulaic way. Books published by reputable publishing houses and chapters in volumes edited by prestigious scientists can also be valued and normally give evidence of scholarship.
2.
What lesser publications such as encyclopaedia entries, programme notes, reviews etc. command respect in your discipline?

Chapters in handbooks that do not necessarily report on the author’s research but offer instead a comprehensive account of research in a given area can also command respect.
3.
What are the top-rated outlets for dissemination of research in your discipline? E.g. major publishers, top journals?
Many journals and conferences are specific to sub-disciplines and, therefore, it is impossible to establish a hierarchy.
4.
What are the guiding assumptions about sole authorship, PI status, percentage contribution, joint editorship, etc.?
There are no rules that can be applied across sub-disciplines, especially in interdisciplinary areas. Normally, the order and number of authors is not relevant.
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?
(Quality, not productivity measured by volume, should be considered for promotion. The RAE/REF also rewards quality,
not volume, and so does the Department when recruiting academic staff.) Publication rates are very sub-discipline specific and are no proxy for quality. The considered opinion of three distinguished academics will always be more reliable than any metric. One particular pitfall to bear in mind is that Computer Science is sometimes prone to fashions: one can witness surges of activity in areas with only superficial research content and hardly any impact. A positive step-change for a professor in Computer Science is much more likely to come from the publication of a paper or a series of papers than sheer volume.
6.
What are the top-rated funding sources for Research in your discipline? E.g. ESRC, AHRC, Leverhulme
Trust, Wellcome etc.
No rankings amongst awarding bodies.
7.
What levels of funding would you regard as indicating a) a reasonable performance; or b) high performance in your discipline?
Essentially, levels of funding do not necessarily reflect research quality or scholarship. Typically, except for a few sub-disciplines, research in Computer Science does not require expensive equipment. Often, funding is sought for networking and for supporting research collaborations, for which the amounts are relatively small. Higher-levels of funding can be associated with the priorities of awarding bodies and, therefore, they do not necessarily reflect good-quality scholarship.
8.
Are invited lectures/ conference plenaries/ conference organization/ visiting professorships/ particularly significant in your discipline, and in what sort of ranked order?
All those indicators provide evidence of esteem but their absence does not indicate lack of esteem. There is no ranked order of those indicators: each should be assessed individually. There are no rankings within each indicator that can be applied across sub-disciplines. Membership of programme committees of major conferences is another indicator of esteem (similar to invited talks in other disciplines).
9.
What awards, prizes and honours if any, are significant in your discipline?
The Turing Award and the Gödel Prize are the most distinctive in Computer Science.
10.
Membership of which learned societies or other discipline-specific groups or organizations carry weight in your discipline?
Membership of some learned societies or academic/professional organisations (of which there are many in
Computer Science, often sub-discipline specific) is open to anyone, some requiring a fee; others are by invitation only or are vetted by membership committees, which carries more weight, but each should be assessed individually.

Several professional organisations and learned societies award fellowships. Fellowships give evidence of peer esteem but their absence does not indicate lack of esteem. Fellowship of the Royal Society is a clear indicator of esteem at the highest level.
TEACHING
1.
How many PhD students (in FTEs) would you expect to be supervised by Professors in your discipline?
(In the Department, PhD supervision is considered to be part of research, not teaching.) There are no norms that can be applied across sub-disciplines. Usually, good PhD students require scholarships, which in the current system requires a collective (not individual) effort at departmental or university level to attract funding (e.g. via DTCs) or make funds available. Individuals should be rewarded for being able to attract funding for PhD scholarships regardless of whether they are professors or not (but they cannot be expected to be able to do so).
2.
What are the norms for contribution by Professors to Masters courses and their validation in your discipline?
We are not aware of any disciplinary norms in this respect and cannot understand how any could be constructed given that the number of professors in a department is not linked to the number of courses offered or to be validated. In the Department, no distinction is made between Masters and undergraduate teaching.
3.
What are the norms for Professors devising and teaching undergraduate courses in your discipline?
We are not aware of any disciplinary norms in this respect and cannot understand how any could be constructed given that the number of professors in a department is not linked to the number of courses offered or to be validated. In the Department, no distinction is made between Masters and undergraduate teaching.
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?
We are not aware of any disciplinary norms and cannot understand how indicators and associated metrics could be devised that would measure performance in this respect. Individuals should be rewarded for any form of external involvement that contributes to the advancement of Computer Science or of the Department or College, on a caseby-case basis, according to the nature of the involvement.
2.
What particular forms of external academic, and where relevant non-academic, impact would indicate an acceptable and high performance in your discipline?
Impact, no matter what form, is good, but we are not aware of any indicators and associated metrics through which impact in general could be reliably measured (especially given the breadth of forms that impact can take) to the point of identifying a threshold of acceptability.
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?
All kinds of Third Stream activity that contribute to the advancement of Computer Science or of Departmental or
College strategy are important and encouraged but there are no norms that can be applied across all individuals, in kind or volume. Talent and ability to create opportunities for Third Stream activity should be rewarded, especially when they arise as a result of the individual’s activity and not from any particular role that they are assigned.
However, the lack of Third Stream activity should not be held against any particular individual except in those situations where it is part of their role (in which case it should be dealt with through performance management).

LEADERSHIP AND ENHANCEMENT
1.
What forms of leadership, internal and external, command respect in your discipline?
We are not aware of any discipline-specific forms of leadership that command respect. In general, all forms of genuine leadership that derive from scholarship command respect.
2.
What forms of enhancement, such as support of improved performance by colleagues, command respect in your discipline?
We are not aware of any discipline-specific forms of enhancement that command respect.