DRAFT as at 16/07/05
UOA 09, Psychiatry, Neuroscience and Clinical
Psychology
This statement should be read alongside the statement for main panel B and the generic
statement.
Absences of chair and declaration of interests
1.
In the event of absence or declared interest of the chair of the sub-panel, a deputy
chair has been appointed.
2.
Where a sub-panel member has declared a major interest in an institution they will
withdraw from the meeting room when discussion in relation to the assessment of that
institution takes place. The formal note of the discussion provided by the sub-panel
secretary and agreed with the members present, shall be the only part of that discussion
to which they are party.
3.
Sub-panel members will declare minor interests, where appropriate, and these will
be noted and the member’s involvement in assessing a submission may be restricted.
UOA Descriptor
4.
The UOA includes: psychiatry and its sub-specialities, clinical neuroscience and its
sub-specialities, clinical psychology and its sub-specialities, and any aspects of science
that are applicable or clinically relevant to these subjects.
UOA Boundaries
5.
The sub-panel expects to receive submissions from all areas of psychiatry,
neuroscience and psychology that inform or have the potential to inform clinical practice
6.
The sub-panel recognises that there may be a breadth of research that extends
beyond the definition of the UOA descriptor and in these instances will work closely with
other appropriate sub-panels, cross refer work and seek the advice of specialist advisors.
Particular areas in which the panel expects to do this are in the overlaps between clinical
and basic neuroscience and between clinical and general psychology. There may also be
instances when cross referrals to other sub-panels are necessary in such areas as
epidemiology or health services research. Research on medical education will be cross
referred to UOA7, Health Services Research. However, the final decision on assessment
of outputs cross referred to other sub-panels will remain with sub-panel 9.
Research Staff
7.
Departments may indicate the contribution of category A, B, C and D staff in RA5
under both staffing policy in research environment and esteem. In addition, category C
staff may list research outputs for assessment in RA2, which will be assessed in the
1
DRAFT as at 16/07/05
same manner as outputs for category A staff. A description of the long-term research
links that category C staff has with the department should be described in RA5c for
example, co-supervision of students, or membership of research groups.
Research Outputs
8.
Departments are reminded of the RAE definition of research that will be used for
the assessment which can be found at annex C of the generic statement.
9.
The normal expectation is that each member of staff should submit 4 research
outputs, 4 is also the maximum. Details on circumstances where it may be permissible
for fewer that 4 outputs to be submitted are described in main panel B working methods
in the section on individual staff circumstances.
10. All forms of research output will be evaluated by the sub-panel in the same way
using criteria including the originality, scientific rigour, contribution to knowledge and
conceptual framework of the field as well as the challenge and logistical difficulty posed
by the work. The sub-panel will also assess the potential and actual implementation of
the research and its potential impact on health and healthcare and on public health and
public policy. The sub-panel expects to receive outputs in the form described in Range of
Indicators of Excellence noted in the main panel B criteria. These will most commonly
consist of primary, data-based research papers but meta-analyses and systematic
reviews will also be considered as will outputs relating to the development of
psychometric tests. Books or review articles that contain a substantial innovative or
original contribution, for example presenting a fresh interpretation of data or putting
forward a novel hypothesis or theory, will also be judged as research. Outputs such as
standard review articles or text book chapters that simply survey previously published
work without a significant, novel, intellectual contribution will not be considered as
research and will not contribute to the quality profile.
11. Author order will have no relevance to the sub-panels assessment of outputs.
Where outputs have multiple authorship departments should indicate in the other relevant
details field in RA2 (and if this proves too limited, in the narrative in RA5) the level of
contribution made by each staff member. The expectation of the sub-panel is that this
should be substantial. Examples of indicators of an author’s contribution are that they
are: the principle investigator; drafted the paper; secured funding for the project;
generated or provided data, were responsible for the analysis or developed the
hypothesis.
12. The sub-panel welcomes research outputs that reflect collaborative research within
and between institutions. When listing such outputs departments should take care to
indicate the contribution made by its own staff in the other relevant details field in RA2.
13. Submissions should list outputs that best reflect the range of research undertaken
over the assessment period. If, within a submission, outputs cluster in any part of the
assessment period, departments should provide an explanation for this in RA5.
2
DRAFT as at 16/07/05
14. Departments are encouraged to submit applied and practice-based research (see
paragraph 33). In judging such research account will be taken of its potential to advance
a field or change its practice.
15. Teaching material or work on the pedagogy of higher education that embodies
research outcomes may be admissible but departments should ensure that the work
complies with the RAE definition of research. The sub-panel will cross refer work in
medical education to UOA 7 Health Services Research.
Research Environment
Research Students and Research Studentships
16. The data on research students and studentships, reported in section RA3 of
submissions, will be judged, in addition to wider aspects of research capacity building
which should be described in RA5, as components of the Research Environment. The
sub-panel will consider analyses of studentships and research students supervised per
FTE research-active staff as well as completion rates.
17. Greater credit will be given for studentships that have been awarded through a
rigorous process of peer-review and competition.
18. Total numbers of research students, completions and studentships for the
assessment period should be indicated for each research group in the commentary on
Research Environment in RA5, and should reconcile to the totals reported in RA3. Data
on D Clin Psy students should be reported separately in RA3.
Research Income
19. External research income reported in section RA4 of submissions will be judged as
a component of the Research Environment. The sub-panel will give careful consideration
to levels of research included in the submission for each research group as well as the
submission as a whole. It will look at analyses of different sources of income normalised
per FTE research-staff included in the submission and average levels across the
assessment period. In addition, total levels of research income for the assessment period
should be indicated for each research group in the commentary on Research
Environment in RA5, and should reconcile to the totals reported in RA4.
20. Credit will be given for all sources of funding particularly for forms of support that
are subject to rigorous peer review such as grants from Research Councils, AMRC, EU,
NIH (and other competitively won international sources), and NHS R&D national
programmes. Awards from industry or government that are sizeable or sustained may
also be considered equivalent to peer reviewed funding.
3
DRAFT as at 16/07/05
21. The sub-panel recognises that the profile of research and hence both the need and
the ability to attract research funding will vary across departments and subject areas, and
it will take this into account when it makes its assessment.
Research Structure
22. Departments should define research groups, and their members, giving the total
FTE, (referring to RA1), their prime activities, how they operate and their main
achievements. To facilitate analysis of submissions departments will be expected to
identify research groups in both the staff record (RA1) and research outputs form (RA2).
Departments should also comment on the operation of major research groups under
RA5. Research groups selected and identified by the department should be consistent
between RA1, RA2 and RA5.
23. Departments should list other UOAs to which related work has been submitted and
detail any difficulties of fit between departmental or institutional structure and the UOA
framework.
24. Departments should explain the mechanisms and practices for promoting research
and sustaining and developing an active and vital research culture. Assessors will be
asked in particular to consider data on long term support, and on senior and other
fellowships. This information will be referred to during the discussion of each submission.
25. The nature and quality of the research infrastructure, including facilities for
research students should be described. The research organisation stated in RA5 will be
tested against the information provided in the rest of the submission. Any arrangements
that are in place for supporting interdisciplinary or collaborative research should be
described. Departments should provide information on relationships with industry and
commerce or other research users and where appropriate on the account taken of
Government policy initiatives and objectives.
26. For each research group, departments should provide data on the following:
research income; students and studentships (specified above); and the number (in FTE)
of research assistants in the group.
Staffing Policy
27. Departments should document how they have worked to maintain a sustainable
staff structure. The arrangements for the development and support of the research work
of staff should be described. Any arrangements that are in place for developing the
research of early career researchers and for integrating them into a wider, supportive
research culture should be described. The arrangements for the research career
development of both non-clinical and clinical lecturers should be included. Particular
mention of the role of clinical lecturers would be helpful.
Research Strategy
4
DRAFT as at 16/07/05
28. The main objectives and planned activities in research over the next five years
should be stated. This should include the balance sought between long-term and shortterm research, the development of infrastructure to facilitate research and ongoing work
that is not producing immediate visible outcomes. The procedures for developing
research strategy should be described.
29. Departments may wish to document any changes since the 2001 RAE which have
affected research capacity. If no submission was made to the relevant UOA in 2001
departments may comment on the development of research in this area since 2001.
30. The sub-panel particularly expects the new medical schools that have been
established since the 2001 RAE to provide an explanation of the research strategy that
has developed.
Esteem and Indicators
31. Departments should list indicators of peer esteem and national or international
recognition that relate to the research active staff included in the submission. Examples
of indicators of esteem are given in the main panel B working methods, although this list
is not exhaustive and departments may wish to include other markers of exceptional
achievement or distinction. Indicators of esteem should be listed for named staff under
the heading of each research group in section RA5. However, esteem indicators will be
considered for the submission as a whole and individuals will not be assessed.
32. The sub-panel will not necessarily expect each member of staff returned in a
submission to be able to submit information on indicators of esteem.
Applied research and or practice-based research
33. The sub panel expects much of the research submitted to some of its UOAs to be
applied and practice-based. Full recognition will be given to applied and practice-based
research included in submissions which is of direct relevance to the needs of the NHS,
other parts of the public and voluntary sectors and commerce and industry. Departments
should ensure that such work is innovative and that it adheres to the RAE definition of
research. Equal weight will be given to such research in the main and sub-panels’
assessment of its scientific excellence.
Individual Staff Circumstances
34. The panel strongly encourages departments to submit the work of their excellent
researchers, regardless of their individual circumstances and the panel welcomes the
opportunity available to departments to use the confidential arrangements of RA5b to
outline mitigating circumstances of individual cases. The panel encourages departments
to include in their submissions those staff whose quantity of output may have been
affected by prolonged absences from research, including circumstances addressed by
5
DRAFT as at 16/07/05
equality and diversity legislation. RA5b must be completed for each individual staff
member who is submitting fewer than four outputs, to describe the mitigating factors
which explain the impact of such circumstances on their work. This will enable the panel
to take full account of such mitigating circumstances. The panel recognises that there
may be exceptional circumstances where departments wish to submit one output for
staff. The panel is concerned that such submissions may not be a fair indication of the
existence of a body of work and will expect supporting evidence to be submitted.
35. Departments should note any individual staff circumstances which have
significantly affected their contribution to the submission (e.g. periods of sick leave,
career breaks, maternity / paternity leave, engagement on long term projects, etc.). In
making its assessment the sub-panel will take account of staff that have circumstances
that fall within one of the categories listed under the individual staff circumstances section
of the main panel B criteria. Whilst the normal expectation is that staff should submit four
research outputs for assessment, the sub-panel will make allowances for a lower number
of outputs for staff that have special circumstances.
36. In particular, the sub-panel is very aware of the contribution clinical academic staff
(with clinical and/or training commitments) make to the vibrancy of the research culture
and would encourage departments to include these individuals in submissions. For
clinical lecturers or equivalent who have not completed their training and received a
Certificate of Completion of Training, departments may submit them with only two
research outputs. Departments may in special cases submit fewer than 4 outputs for
other clinical academics with substantial clinical commitments. In all cases where special
circumstances apply to category A staff departments must provide an explanation in
RA5b.
Working Methods
37. The assessment will be one of peer review based on professional judgement. A
minimum of two sub-panel members will be appointed to act as lead assessors for each
departments submission.
Research Outputs
38.
The assessment of research outputs will comprise 75% of the quality profile.
39.
A minimum of two members will independently judge each output and present
their quality level scores to the lead assessors described in paragraph 37. The sub-panel
will scrutinize in detail a minimum of 50% of research outputs in each submission and
these will be selected on a random basis. All remaining outputs will be considered in
sufficient detail to form an assessment. This will normally include reading the abstract
and discussion sections of the output, noting the contribution of the staff member and
forming a judgement on whether the output has undergone rigorous peer review.
Members will refer outputs which they consider fall outside of their area of expertise to a
sub-panel member who is better qualified to judge it, or to another sub-panel, and where
6
DRAFT as at 16/07/05
appropriate will seek the advice of specialist advisors or the international members who
serve on the main panel.
40.
Data on the number of research active staff in RA1 will be compared with the
total number of research outputs listed in RA2. Account will be taken of staff with fewer
than 4 outputs where special circumstances are described in RA5b.
Research Environment
41.
The Research Environment will form 20% of the total quality profile. It consists of
the following elements:
a.
research students (RA3a) and research studentships (RA3b),and measures
to build and develop research capacity.
b.
research income levels (RA4).
c.
source of research income (RA4). Funding awarded through a competitive
process of rigorous peer review, such as research councils, AMRC charities
and NHS R&D will be given the greatest weight in the assessment. Income
from prestigious and competitive international sources will also be given due
weight.
d.
the research structure including culture and coherence, research environment
and its sustainability, staffing policy, policies for developing new researchers
and research strategy, including future plans.
e.
the narrative in RA5 on the impact or potential impact of the department’s
research on health and healthcare.
42.
Whilst analyses of data, as described above, will be used to inform the panels
work, the overall assessment will not be formulaic but will be based on the sub-panels
professional judgement of all the components that make up the Research Environment.
The qualitative and quantitative information requested in RA5 for each research group
will assist the sub-panel in identifying areas of excellence in the Research Environment
and a quality level rating will be given for each research group and the weighting of this in
respect of the final quality profile for the research environment will be taken from the FTE
number of staff in the research group. Where an individual belongs to more than one
research group this should be indicated in RA5. It is recognized that some submissions
may consist of a single research group.
43. The information above describes how the sub-panel will approach the detailed
assessment of research outputs and metrics on research income, students and
studentships respectively.
Esteem indicators
44.
Esteem indicators will comprise 5% of the total quality profile.
45.
The measures of esteem indicated for each research group will assist the subpanel in identifying pockets of excellence. A quality level rating will be given for each
7
DRAFT as at 16/07/05
research group and the weighting of this in respect of the final quality profile for the
research environment will be determined from the number of FTE staff in the research
group.
46.
The sub-panel will not necessarily expect each member of staff returned in a
submission to be able to submit information in indicators of esteem.
47. In undertaking its assessment of submissions the sub-panel may make reference
to appropriate quality level benchmark indicators to help inform consistency in its
judgements. The sub-panel will consult the main panel and international members to test
its application of the quality levels to the three components of submissions. For each
submission the lead assessors will present to the sub-panel three separate quality
profiles for each of the elements that sum to make the overall quality profile. The subpanel will discuss this assessment and arrive at a consensus on the final agreed overall
profile. In any instances where consensus cannot be reached the quality profile will be
decided by a majority vote. The sub-panel will then recommend the quality profile to the
Main Panel.
Additional information requested
48. The sub-panel will consider analyses of studentships and research students
supervised per FTE research-active staff as well as completion rates.
49. The sub-panel will look at analyses of different sources of income normalised per
FTE research-staff included in the submission and average levels across the assessment
period.
8