Document Sample
RAE Powered By Docstoc
					              RAE SUMMARY
          Or - how to play the RAE Game ?
     (informal notes - personal view - to try and help)
Task for each panel:
      Overall Quality Profile (for each submission)

      level     4*     3*      2*     1*      u/c
      % in     15      25     30      20      10
                 Obtain by summing:
          Overall quality profile by summing:

Res Outputs (70%)
4* 3* 2* 1* u/c
10 25 40 15 10

                Res Environment (20%)
                   4* 3* 2* 1* u/c
                    20 30 15 20 15
                                        Esteem (10%)
                                      4* 3* 2* 1* u/c
  .7x10 + .2x20 + .1x30 = 15          30 25 10 20 15
4* -- world-leading exhibits high levels of originality, innovation
                       and depth and is likely to have a major
?? 15 %                impact on the development of the field
3* -- internationally excellent
                       high levels of originality, represents substl
?? 25-30 %             achievement, significant impact on
                       development of field
2* -- internationally recognised
                       some originality/innovation,
                       an impact on field
1* -- nationally recognised
                       an identifiable contribution,
                       a minor impact
Submission is Nov 2007 -- so coming year crucial
Units of assessment:
Main panel F (/15):
    Subpanels - 20 pure maths
       (/67)    21 applied maths
                22 statistics
                23 comp sci
      Jan 06      - final criteria published
      July 07     - cutoff for res. income/ res. Studs
      Nov 07      - submissions

 (No information collected on staff not submitted)
         Stats Panel minor differences:
Subpanel welcomes the submission of applied research to which
statistics has made a has made a substantive contribution. It recognises
that good research is often found in journals specialising in other areas.

Coauthored papers by more than one individual count only once
     1. Research Output (70%) -- i.e. papers
Each included person on 31 Oct 07 expected to submit
4 papers (Jan 01 - Dec 07)
      --> quality profile for submission from dept
The papers are judged, not the people.
Your role must be significant
(need not be 1st author [PhD stud, RA or foreign collaborator])
Not conference proc.
Not short paper, unless really important result

•Aim -- maximise number of 4* (& 3*) ratings.

   [NB esteem may have a subtle indirect role here].
Panel:    will examine all papers (50% in detail).

   Not use impact factors/citation indices as proxy for quality.

      Look for originality, innovation, significance,
            depth, rigour, influence on discipline

Allowance will be made for early career researchers
                  [< 4 papers]
          (start PDF, AF, URF after Sept 2003).

         ?? Only submit those with 4 3*/4* papers.
       Stats Panel minor differences on
               research outputs:

In deciding which papers not to examine, the panel will take account of
prior knowledge of the research or of the rigour of the refereeing.

Should add a note of --
     research content of survey articles
     original research contained in books
        2.    Research Environment (20%)
Award rating to each of:
     • research students and studentships [/ year]
             [No PhD’s per staff is key measure]
             (*need to maximise/diversify the number)
      • research income [/year]
            (*need to maximise/diversify)
      • research structure
   [active seminar programme, hosting conferences,
   industrial collaborations, level of general research funds per staff]
      • staff policy
        [generous research leave, nurturing young researchers]
      • research strategy
      • sustainability & vitality (the most important)
Not all equally important (??)
       Stats Panel minor differences on
            research environment:
The panel will take note of the sources of studentships
and of research income,
especially the strength of the competition and the quality
of science required for success

Staffing policy:
       arrangements for developing/supporting staff in their research
       arrangements for integrating newly recruited staff
                        3. Esteem
             (only 10% -- but may influence others!)
Submit 2NAC examples, where NAC is the number of A/C staff
                (maximum of 4 per staff).
       +NBD examples, where NBD is the number of B/D staff
                   (max of 2 per staff)
It is the esteem indicators that are judged, not the individuals.

         * Aim -- maximise number of 4* indicators
                -- only submit indicators that are 3* or 4*
                -- help each other obtain 3* & 4*
      Stats Panel minor differences on
Esteem indicators:
      Awards, prizes
      Keynote, plenary and other invited addresses at conferences
      Significant professional service
      Major research grants
      Major conference organisation
        Examples of 4* Esteem Indicator:

Election to RS during period
Major international prize (we should be proposing people)
Plenary at major international conference
Major conference organisation [IUTAM/BAMC]
                  or research grant [£1m from EPSRC]
Senior fellowship (we should try for some)
For early career expect different level
             (e.g. seminar invitation to Oxbridge!!)
        The following would be < 3*
Minor committees
External examiner
Invited talk at conf., workshop, summer school
  [unless a plenary review at prestigious international conf]
Editor of workshop
Organiser of minor conf.
National activities
                     Bottom Line:

What we each do over next 12 months can make a
           The one really good paper

           Esteem indicators (help each other)

            Studentships / research income

  Pure Panel minor differences on
         research output:
Expects submissions from history of maths

Should add a note of --
     research content of survey articles
     original research contained in books
      Pure Panel minor differences on
            research environment:
Staffing policy:
      arrangements for developing/supporting staff in their research
      arrangements for developing/supporting early career researchers
             & integrating them into a supportive research culture
      same for newly recruited staff
     Pure Panel minor differences on
Indicators include:
      significant professional service on international
             review panels/learned societies/editorial boards

4* include:
      [election to Royal Society or foreign academy 2001-07
      receipt of a major international prize]
      invitation to give an invited lecture at an international

Shared By: