HEFCE REF Consultation The right to reply, paragraph by paragraph…

The following provides a quick guide to the consultation questions and the corresponding sections of the consultation document. The closing date for email submissions using the approved form is midday on Wednesday 16 December 2009. The official consultation page can be found on the HEFCE publications website: Policy Development Consultation, September 2009/38: Research Excellence Framework (Second consultation on the assessment and funding of research)

See also: The Research Excellence Framework: A Brief Guide to the Proposals [PDF]

Consultation question 1
Do you agree with the proposed key features of the REF? If not, explain why.
See: Framework for assessment

Consultation question 2
What comments do you have on the proposed approach to assessing outputs? If you disagree with any of these proposals please explain why. Comments are especially welcomed on the following proposals: – that institutions should select research staff and outputs to be assessed – for the categories of staff eligible for selection, and how they are defined – for encouraging institutions to submit – and for assessing – all types of high-quality research outputs including applied and translational research – for the use of citation information to inform the review of outputs in appropriate UOAs (including the range of appropriate UOAs, the type of citation information that should be provided to panels as outlined in Annex C, and the flexibility panels should have in using the information) and on the following options: – whether there should be a maximum of three or four outputs submitted per researcher – whether certain types of output should be ‘double-weighted’ and if so, how these could be defined.
See: Assessing output quality and REF Further Information: Bibliometrics

Consultation question 3
What comments do you have on the proposed approach to assessing impact? If you disagree with any of these proposals please explain why. Comments are especially welcomed on the following: – how we propose to address the key challenges of time lags and attribution – the type of evidence to be submitted, in the form of case studies and an impact statement supported by indicators (including comments on the initial template for case studies and menu of indicators at Annex D) – the criteria for assessing impact and the definition of levels for the impact sub-profile – the role of research users in assessing impact.
See: Assessing the impact of research and REF Further Information: Impact

Consultation question 4
Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to assessing research environment??
See: The research environment

Consultation question 5
Do you agree with our proposals for combining and weighting the output, impact and environment sub-profiles? If not please propose an alternative and explain why this is preferable.
See: Overall assessment outcomes

Consultation question 6
What comments do you have on the panel configuration proposed at Annex E? Where suggesting alternative options for specific UOAs, please provide the reasons for this.
See: Panel structure and consistency

Consultation question 7
Do you agree with the proposed approach to ensuring consistency between panels?
See: Consistency across panels

Consultation question 8
Do you have any suggested additions or amendments to the list of nominating bodies? (If suggesting additional bodies, please provide their names and addresses and indicate how they are qualified to make nominations.)
See: Nominations to Panels

Consultation question 9
Do you agree that our proposed approach will ensure that interdisciplinary research is assessed on an equal footing with other types of research? Are there further measures we should consider to ensure that this is the case and that our approach is well understood?
See: Interdisciplinary Research

Consultation question 10
Do you agree that our proposals for encouraging and supporting researcher mobility will have a positive effect; and are there other measures that should be taken within the REF to this end?
See: Researcher Mobility

Consultation question 11
Are there any further ways in which we could improve the measures to promote equalities and diversity?
See: Equalities and diversity

Consultation question 12
Do you have any comments about the proposed timetable?
See: Timetable and Submissions

Consultation question 13
Are there any further areas in which we could reduce burden, without compromising the robustness of the process?
See: Accountability burden

---

Responses to the consultation should be made by completing and returning the form at Annex A [MS-Word doc] by e-mail to ref@hefce.ac.uk by midday on Wednesday 16 December 2009.

In addition:

• Responses from institutions in Scotland should be copied to Pauline Jones, Scottish Funding Council, e-mail pjones@sfc.ac.uk
• Responses from institutions in Wales should be copied to Linda Tiller, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, e-mail linda.tiller@hefcw.ac.uk
• Responses from institutions in Northern Ireland should be copied to the Department for Employment and Learning, e-mail research.branch@delni.gov.uk