Implications for strategyIain RichardsonSchool of Engineering and the Built Environmenti.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk

Overview

• Publication targets• How do we pick staff for submission?• Worked example• Implications for strategy

Targets for submitted staff

• Four “high quality” outputs per submitted staff member• What is “high quality” ?

– Rigorous peer review (e.g. top journals; some conferences)

– Adventurous and agenda-setting

– Makes a demonstrable impact on industry/practice

– Fits the “story” in RA5

• Points to note:– Many journals have at least a 2-year lead-in time

– Text commentary in RA2 submission may be valuable

– Individual staff circumstances can be taken into account

Where to publish ?

• What is a “top journal” ? – You should know the best journal(s) in your own subject area..

• How hard is it to get published in a particular journal/conference?– This is important because panels will not read every publication

– Rigorous peer-review implies a certain standard of quality

• Quote from a main panel chair:– “It doesn’t matter whether an article is published in Nature or in an

obscure trade publication, it’s the quality that counts”.

– Do you believe that ??

• Will it be in print by the census date ?

What’s the best strategy in terms of selecting staff ?

• i.e. given a “pool” of research staff, each with 4 publications of varying standards, how do we maximise the outcomes of RAE08?

maximise funding

maximise rating

motivate researchers

?

Maximising funding

• Make a guess about the likely quality profile, based on:– Assessment of staff esteem + output quality

– Numbers of research degrees + amount of external funding

• Make a guess about how funding will be allocated to each “star”– E.g. assume funding will be weighted towards higher star

ratings (2 star and above)

• Choose list of submitted staff to maximise the product of (quality profile x funding weighting)

Maximising quality rating

• Make a guess about the likely quality rating of each staff member– With allowances for individual staff circumstances

• Assume that the “headline” outcome will be based on the mean quality rating

• Choose list of submitted staff to maximise the mean quality rating

Motivating researchers

• Include as many research-active staff as possible in the submission

• (Easier to justify for early-career staff ??)• .. But a high RAE rating will pay dividends for future staff retention

and recruitment..

Worked example (1)(courtesy of Professor Paul Acarnley)

• Assume 20 staff have the potential to be returned as Category A researchers

• Assume that the RAE panel’s judgement of the quality of these staff members’ research output is as follows:

0

2

4

6

8

10

Num

ber of academ

ics

0* 1* 2* 3* 4*

Worked example (2)

• Assume the following multipliers for SHEFC research funding:

Assumption (a)

Assumption (b)

1* 1.0 0

2* 1.55 1.55

3* 3.07 3.07

Worked example (3)

The Money View

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

0 5 10 15 20

Academics Returned

Inco

me

(arb

itra

ry u

nit

s)

Total income if thisnumber returned

Total incomeassuming one starnot funded

Worked example (4)

The Status View

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0 5 10 15 20

Academics Returned

Ave

rag

e st

ar r

atin

g Quality factor if thisnumber returned

Note: research income and research degrees awarded are measured per FTE staff.

Implications for strategy

Return more staff

Return fewer staff

Funding

Quality grade

Critical mass

Staff morale

Lower

Lower Higher(if we guess right!)

Better Worse

Better ?(staff feel “valued”)

Better ??(staff want a high rating)

Higher(up to a point)

Discussion