What is a RAE submittable paper

1
What is a RAE submittable paper ?
Phil Hannaford
2
Research Assessment Exercise
Stated main purpose was to produce ratings of
research quality which would be used by the
higher education funding bodies in determining
the main grant for research to the institutions
they fund.
3
Research Assessment Exercise
www.hero.ac.uk/rae
4
RAE - some key points

• It was not a publishing assessment exercise

5
RAE - some key points

• It was not a publishing assessment exercise
• It was a strategic issue for the university

6
RAE - some key points

• It was not a publishing assessment exercise
• It was a strategic issue for the university
• We were working to explicit criteria

7
RAE 2001 evidence

• Quality of research outputs

8
RAE 2001 evidence

• Quality of research outputs
• Extent of research activity, e.g. research
  assistants, research students, research
  studentships

9
RAE 2001 evidence

• Quality of research outputs
• Extent of research activity, e.g. research
  assistants, research students, research
  studentships
• Research spend

10
RAE 2001 evidence

• Quality of research outputs
• Extent of research activity, e.g. research
  assistants, research students, research
  studentships
• Research spend
• Evidence of vitality and prospects for continuing
  development

11
Research outputs (1)

• Using expertise and judgement, the panel looked
  at
• originality
• scientific rigour
• potential and actual implementation and impact in
  health care
• contribution to knowledge and conceptual
  framework of the field

12
Research outputs (2)

• Systematic overviews and meta-analyses, and
  research into methodology considered equally with
  papers describing primary research

13
Research outputs (2)

• Systematic overviews and meta-analyses, and
  research into methodology considered equally with
  papers describing primary research
• Papers presenting new hypothesis given equal
  weight but assessed for originality and power to
  stimulate new work.

14
Research outputs (2)

• Systematic overviews and meta-analyses, and
  research into methodology considered equally with
  papers describing primary research
• Papers presenting new hypothesis given equal
  weight but assessed for originality and power to
  stimulate new work.
• More traditional reviews or editorials needed to
  display originality

15
Research outputs (3)

• Any output between 1.1.96 and 31.12.00

16
Research outputs (3)

• Any output between 1.1.96 and 31.12.00
• Mostly papers

17
Research outputs (3)

• Any output between 1.1.96 and 31.12.00
• Mostly papers
• 4 outputs per person, exceptionally less

18
Research outputs (3)

• Any output between 1.1.96 and 31.12.00
• Mostly papers
• 4 outputs per person, exceptionally less
• Order of authorship not important

19
Research outputs (3)

• Any output between 1.1.96 and 31.12.00
• Mostly papers
• 4 outputs per person, exceptionally less
• Order of authorship not important
• Group authorship valued- appropriate, often
  desirable

20
Research outputs (3)

• Any output between 1.1.96 and 31.12.00
• Mostly papers
• 4 outputs per person, exceptionally less
• Order of authorship not important
• Group authorship valued- appropriate, often
  desirable
• Generally only one use of an output per panel

21
Research outputs (4)

• Assessment not based on bibliometric indices

22
Research outputs (4)

• Assessment not based on bibliometric indices
• Collectively all outputs reviewed a minimum of
  25 examined in detail

23
Research outputs (4)

• Assessment not based on bibliometric indices
• Collectively all outputs reviewed a minimum of
  25 examined in detail
• Outputs graded
• international
• national
• subnational

24
Research outputs (4)

• Assessment not based on bibliometric indices
• Collectively all outputs reviewed a minimum of
  25 examined in detail
• Outputs graded
• international
• national
• subnational
• Grades were quality standards, not descriptors of
  the nature or scope of the research

25
International excellence

• On a par with the best in its area anywhere in
  the world. Normally disseminated
  internationally, most probably rigorously peer or
  user group reviewed and will display substantive
  knowledge of developments in theory and/or
  practice internationally. Work addressing a
  local problem can have international
  significance, where it reflects best
  international standards or seen as a
  methodological benchmark for others to aim for.

26
National excellence

• Work that is judged to be nationally competitive
  and makes a valuable contribution to knowledge,
  theory or practice relevant to the discipline.

27

• Final step in assigning rating semi-quantitative

28
Rating scale

• 5 - international gt50, national in the
  remainder
• 
  (gt 50 I, lt10 S)
• 5 - international up to 50, virtually all rest
  national
• 
  (20-50 I, lt10 S)
• 4 - virtually all national, some signs of
  international
• 
  (up to 20 I, lt 20 S)
• 3a - over two-thirds national, some evidence of
  international
• 
  (66 N, some I)
• 3b - more than half national
• 2 - up to half national
• 1 - none or virtually none national

29
Hannafords publications 1996-2000
30
Hannafords publications 1996-2000 (after
deleting editorials, reviews, educational and
clinical pieces etc.)
31
Submittable?
32
Submittable?
33
Submittable?
34
Submittable?
35
Submittable?
36
Submittable?
37
Submittable?
38
The next RAE

• If and when ?

39
The next RAE

• If and when ?
• Whatever
• It will still not be a publishing assessment
  exercise

40
The next RAE

• If and when ?
• Whatever
• It will still not be a publishing assessment
  exercise
• It will still be a strategic issue for the
  university

41
The next RAE

• If and when ?
• Whatever
• It will still not be a publishing assessment
  exercise
• It will still be a strategic issue for the
  university
• By striving for excellence we can forget about
  its details