next »

[observer3]

Someone told me that it isn't possible to count a paper on which you did less than 50 percent of the work, such that a 3-authored paper would not be possible to count. And that for a dual-authored paper you would have to assert doing more than 50 percent and make sure your co-author was ok with that. Is this not the case?

[the_walrus]

I don't know for sure, but I doubt very much that hefce would have that rule.  That does, however, sound like a kind of (hair-brained) rule that an institution might make themselves about coauthored submissions.

[expatinuk]

Someone told me that it isn't possible to count a paper on which you did less than 50 percent of the work, such that a 3-authored paper would not be possible to count. And that for a dual-authored paper you would have to assert doing more than 50 percent and make sure your co-author was ok with that. Is this not the case?

That would let out most science papers.. takes a lot of folks to work in a lab.

[science_expat]

I don't know for sure, but I doubt very much that hefce would have that rule.  That does, however, sound like a kind of (hair-brained) rule that an institution might make themselves about coauthored submissions.

Or some kind of urban myth that could easily circulate within an institution. And as ExPat says, it certainly wouldn't work in science.

Nor is it consistent with, for example, the direction EPSRC is moving in terms of funding large collaborative projects.

[observer3]

That's what I thought. It could be up there with the list of "one of the things that could happen is..." since I guess some things haven't been announced. In our department they are preparing for worst case scenarios I guess, but this is fostering panic for reasons that remain unconfirmed.

Which reminds me. As I understand it each department is just guessing at what the cutoff date for the publications will be so I hear a range. Does anyone have any more concrete info?

[science_expat]

There's no way a 50% rule would work; I wouldn't worry.

If the REF parallels RAE 2008, then the deadline for publications to be out will be end of 2013. But departments will be nervous about ones that aren't physically published by the submission date in late 2013. The timetable is here - http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/timetable.pdf

BTW, in case anyone hasn't seen it the weightings have been announced: 65% outputs, 20% impact, and 15% environment.

When I have more time I'll post about impact but be aware that engagement alone does not equal impact.

[observer3]

Thanks for the info!

Yeah. To have impact one should ideally be writing stuff to train government officials from a non-democracy and earning good money doing it...

Hmmm....

[drspouse]

You could still have done more than 50% of the work even on a three-authored paper.

[expatinuk]

You could still have done more than 50% of the work even on a three-authored paper.

I've done about 90% of the work on a couple of 3 author papers. Of course I never published with the other authors after that either!

[science_expat]

Time to revise this thread - and open a bottle of wine - because I'm spending a lovely Saturday afternoon writing my response to the REF consultation. I haven't even delved into the meat of draft criteria before becoming completely confused - in this instance as to the definition of an early career researcher. To wit:

1. In order to returned as Category A, a member of staff employed on a research only contract must demonstrate that s/he is an independent researcher by being "named as PI on a research grant or significant piece of work on the census date" (Guidance on Submissions, p. 18, para 81). With the exception of the bolded bit - which I do not at all understand in this context - this is the same definition as in RAE 2008.

2. Paragraph 78 states that "Category A are defined as academic staff...who primary employment function is to undertake either 'research only' or 'teaching and research'" and seems to imply that the latter are automatically eligible for inclusion.

3. However, according to paragraph 85 ECRs "meet the definition of Category A or C" and "started their careers as independent researchers on or after 1 August 2009"; the definition of independent researcher is the same as para 81. Say what? Does this mean that an academic (teaching & research) who publishes his first paper as lead author in 2011 is an ECR, even if he began his post in 2008? If so, is the corollary that he's not eligible if he's never been lead author (or PI)?

Any thoughts?

[wegie]

<peers at HEFCE's horrible prose>

1. In order to returned as Category A, a member of staff employed on a research only contract must demonstrate that s/he is an independent researcher by being "named as PI on a research grant or significant piece of work on the census date" (Guidance on Submissions, p. 18, para 81). With the exception of the bolded bit - which I do not at all understand in this context - this is the same definition as in RAE 2008.

Census date is 31/10/13 -- which seems to imply that if you are a research assistant who's been a PI on a grant that ran out in Sept 2013 but are still employed as an RA (unlikely, but I've known science departments where it's possible) you can't qualify as Category A.

3. However, according to paragraph 85 ECRs "meet the definition of Category A or C" and "started their careers as independent researchers on or after 1 August 2009"; the definition of independent researcher is the same as para 81. Say what? Does this mean that an academic (teaching & research) who publishes his first paper as lead author in 2011 is an ECR, even if he began his post in 2008? If so, is the corollary that he's not eligible if he's never been lead author (or PI)?

Nope, because he's caught by 85a as long as his contract says "teaching and research". My reading would be that anybody appointed as a lecturer before Aug 2009 cannot be an ECR. 

[science_expat]

Gah - what a way to spend an afternoon!

Anyone submitting to Main Panel A, I encourage you to read and comment on the proposed criteria for judging outputs. To my mind they overlap significantly with impact and are also very speculative - the word "potential" occurs frequently.

[mingus]

Someone told me that it isn't possible to count a paper on which you did less than 50 percent of the work, such that a 3-authored paper would not be possible to count. And that for a dual-authored paper you would have to assert doing more than 50 percent and make sure your co-author was ok with that. Is this not the case?

It is possible to have a 3- or 4-person paper with one person doing 50% of the work---or even all the work!