Annex C
AVERAGE NUMERIC
RATING AND
NUMBER OF
SUBMISSIONS BY
UNIT OF
ASSESSMENT
| |
| 2001 Weighted
average rating
(rounded to
1 d.p.)
| Number of
submissions
|
| 31 | Mineral and Mining Engineering
| 6.5 | 3
|
| 5 | Pre-Clinical Studies |
6.3 | 6
|
| 6 | Anatomy | 6.2
| 7 |
| 17 | Veterinary Science |
6.0 | 6
|
| 47 | Asian Studies | 6.0
| 13 |
| 49 | Celtic Studies | 6.0
| 15 |
| 44 | Accounting and Finance |
6.0 | 20
|
| 1 | Clinical Laboratory Sciences
| 6.0 | 25
|
| 57 | Classics, Ancient History, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
| 6.0 | 26
|
| 3 | Hospital-based Clinical Subjects
| 6.0 | 31
|
| 19 | Physics | 6.0
| 50 |
| 36 | Law | 6.0
| 60 |
| 54 | Russian, Slavonic and East European Languages
| 5.9 | 17
|
| 53 | Italian | 5.9
| 19 |
| 37 | Anthropology | 5.9
| 20 |
| 52 | German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
| 5.9 | 42
|
| 22 | Pure Mathematics | 5.9
| 47 |
| 46 | Middle Easter and African Studies
| 5.8 | 11
|
| 9 | Pharmacy | 5.8
| 12 |
| 27 | Chemical Engineering |
5.8 | 17
|
| 28 | Civil Engineering | 5.8
| 31 |
| 55 | Iberian and Latin American Languages
| 5.8 | 32
|
| 51 | French | 5.8
| 43 |
| 62 | Philosophy | 5.8
| 44 |
| 23 | Applied Mathematics |
5.8 | 58
|
| 14 | Biological Sciences |
5.8 | 76
|
| 50 | English Language and Literature
| 5.8 | 89
|
| 8 | Pharmacology | 5.7
| 9 |
| 4 | Clinical Dentistry | 5.7
| 14 |
| 58 | Archaeology | 5.7
| 26 |
| 18 | Chemistry | 5.7
| 26 |
| 29 | Electrical and Electronic Engineering
| 5.7 | 45
|
| 30 | Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
| 5.7 | 47
|
| 20 | Earth Sciences | 5.6
| 25 |
| 32 | Metallurgy and Materials
| 5.6 | 30
|
| 59 | History | 5.6
| 95 |
| 2 | Community-based clinical subjects
| 5.5 | 31
|
| 38 | Economics and Econometrics
| 5.5 | 41
|
| 63 | Theology and Divinity and Religious Studies
| 5.5 | 43
|
| 24 | Statistics and Operation Research
| 5.5 | 46
|
| 7 | Physiology | 5.4
| 11 |
| 39 | Politics and International Studies
| 5.4 | 69
|
| 13 | Psychology | 5.4
| 73 |
| 45 | American Studies | 5.3
| 13 |
| 56 | Linguistics | 5.3
| 24 |
| 48 | European Studies | 5.3
| 41 |
| 42 | Sociology | 5.3
| 48 |
| 25 | Computer Science | 5.3
| 80 |
| 67 | Music | 5.2
| 59 |
| 34 | Town and Country Planning
| 5.1 | 28
|
| 60 | History of Art, Architecture and Design
| 5.1 | 39
|
| 26 | General Engineering |
5.1 | 48
|
| 35 | Geography | 5.1
| 62 |
| 16 | Food Science and Technology
| 5.0 | 11
|
| 15 | Agriculture | 5.0
| 19 |
| 40 | Social Policy and Administration
| 5.0 | 47
|
| 69 | Sports-related Subjects
| 4.9 | 34
|
| 33 | Built Environment | 4.8
| 37 |
| 64 | Art and Design | 4.8
| 75 |
| 43 | Business and Management Studies
| 4.8 | 97
|
| 61 | Library and Information Management
| 4.7 | 23
|
| 41 | Social Work | 4.7
| 30 |
| 11 | Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine
| 4.7 | 75
|
| 68 | Education | 4.7
| 83 |
| 65 | Communcation, Cultural and Media Studies
| 4.3 | 38
|
| 66 | Drama, Dance and Performing Arts
| 4.3 | 40
|
| 21 | Environmental Sciences |
4.2 | 34
|
| 10 | Nursing | 4.0
| 43 |
-0.32 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
Transformed ratings (1, 2, 3b, 3a), 4, 5, 5*) = (1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7). The ratings have been weighted by research active
staff in order to arrive at an average. Not corrected for Aston's
last minute change.
While this suggests that there is an association between
submission numbers and ratings within a unit of assessment, it
does not, of course establish the cause or causes.
It needs to be borne in mind that the amount of money provided
for a subject has no relation to the scores secured in that subject
in the RAE.
8. IN 2001-02, YOU
TOLD US
THAT 75 PER
CENT OF
THE QR FUNDING
WENT TO
25 UNIVERSITIES. WHAT
WILL BE
THE PERCENTAGE
FOR 2002-03?
In 2002-03 24 institutions will receive 75 per cent of QR
funding.
9. IF FUNDS
WERE ALLOCATED
FOR 2002-03 USING
THE SAME
FORMULA AS
2001-02, HOW MUCH
WOULD IT
COST?
The actual figure is £206 million. The committee should
note, however, that this includes £25 million for inflation
(which is not, of course, part of the RAE effect).
10. HOW MUCH
QR MONEY WILL
BE ALLOCATED
TO EACH
RATING IN
2001-02 AND 2002-03
Figures are given in the table below
| | 2001-02 (using RAE 1996)
| 2002-03 (using RAE 2001)
|
| | Absolute (£m)
| Percentage | Absolute (£m)
| Percentage |
| 1 | 0 |
0 | 0
| 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
0 | 0
| 0 |
| 3b | 33 |
4 | 0
| 0 |
| 3a | 90 |
12 | 20
| 2 |
| 4 | 208 |
27 | 122
| 15 |
| 5 | 248 |
32 | 378
| 45 |
| 5* | 188 |
24 | 321
| 38 |
| | 767
| 100 | 841
| 100 |
11. WE UNDERSTAND
THAT THE
FUNDING COUNCILS
WILL BE
REVIEWING THE
RAE. HOW WILL
THIS COMPARE
WITH THAT
WHICH PRECEDED
RAE 2001? WHAT IS
THE SCOPE
OF THE
REVIEW? WHAT
IS THE
TIMESCALE?
The HEFCE's recent review of research policy considered all
aspects of research funding policy, from the perspective of the
HEFCE (and therefore England only). The forthcoming review of
the RAE will confine itself to the assessment process itself and
will involve all four UK funding bodies. It will take as its starting
points the outcomes of the funding councils' respective reviews
and issues that arose in implementing the RAE2001 result and will
report by April 2003.
At the same time. HEFCE will be assessing the extent to which
the RAE result demand a reappraisal of the main conclusions of
the review of research. These assessments will feed into the drafting
of the HEFCE's strategic plan for 2003-08, which will itself be
the subject of consultation.
HEFCE's Human Resources (Research) group which was established
as part of the review will continue to consider issues concerning
staff.
12. IN THE
2001 RAE, INSTITUTIONS WERE
ABLE TO
DESCRIBE WHY
SOME MEMBERS
OF STAFF
MIGHT NOT
HAVE PRODUCED
SUBMISSIBLE RESEARCH
OUTPUTS THAT
WERE INDICATIVE
OF THE
QUALITY OF
THEIR WORK.
WHAT DID
THEY SAY?
Personal circumstances were deemed to be relevant to the
volume of work submitted, not the quality.
In general, where researchers' outputs were deemed to be
light (for most panels a question of the research effort involved
in producing them not the size and number of the outputs) the
panel could take this into account. This would mean, for example,
that a researcher submitting one short paper of high quality would
not necessarily be considered equivalent to a colleague producing
four substantial monographs to the same standard.
Panels were, however, asked not to penalise HEIs for submitting
the work of researchers who had valid reasons for producing relatively
small-scale outputs.
We have not yet systematically analysed the reasons put forward.
However, the most common reasons (and those given greatest weight
by the panels) appeared to relate to maternity leave, compassionate
leave and long-term research work.
A properly systematic analysis of the 2000 plus textual submission
in RAE 2001 would represent a major research project.
13. ARE YOU
CONFIDENT THAT
PANELS' ADVICE
ON SUBMISSIONS
OF OUTPUTS
OTHER THAN
PEER-REVIEWED
JOURNALS WAS
OFFERED UNIFORMLY?
14. DO YOU
THINK THAT
UNIVERSITIES ARE
RELUCTANT TO
SUBMIT NON-PEER-REVIEWED
OUTPUTS BECAUSE
OF CONCERNS
THAT SUCH
SUBMISSIONS WOULD
NOT BE
GIVEN EQUAL
WEIGHT AND
THAT RESEARCHERS
WHO HAVE
PRODUCED THEM
ARE BEING
CLASSIFIED AS
RESEARCH-INACTIVE?
The RAE's Guidance on Submissions which applies to submissions
to all units of assessment makes clear that all types of research
output are eligible.
Panels were not free to depart from this guidance in setting
their criteria. Nor were they allowed to produce any communications
indicating a preference for particular types of output.
Panels are looking for evidence of quality. In general, an
article which has been accepted for publication in a rigorously
peer reviewed journal with a high rejection rate will provide
prima facie evidence of high quality. An article published
in a journal with less rigorous peer review standards will not
provide such prima facie evidence and will need to be more
carefully judged. But there should be no question that publication
in one type of journal or the form of output in itself is sufficient
to determine the quality of a piece of work.
The relevant guidance is reproduced in annex D
| 
