List of underpinning research outputs
This includes the full range of output types listed in Guidance on Submissions Annex K. All forms of output cited will be considered equitably, with no one type of output being preferred over others.
You should provide:
- A list of up to 6 research outputs with sufficient detail to enable the panels to access the work if required (see ‘Details required’ below).
- A statement of research quality to enable to panel to determine that the two-star quality threshold has been met (see ‘Evidence of research quality’ below).
- Cross-referencing between the narrative in Section 2. Underpinning research and the list of outputs in this section (see’Cross-referencing to Section 2 narrative’ below).
Details of each research output described in Section 2. Underpinning research should be listed in Section 3. References to research. Details required are:
- Year of publication
- Type of output and other relevant details required to identify the output (eg. DOI, journal title and issue)
- Details to enable the panel to gain access to the output, if required (eg. DOI or other URL), or stating that the output is listed in REF2 or can be supplied by the institution on request.
NB: All outputs must be capable of being made available to panels either via URL or request to the institution to supply as required.
Evidence of research quality
Additional information should be provided to allow the panels to determine that the underpinning research meets the two-star threshold. This should be done in the form of a short caption at the end of the list of research outputs. Examples are provided below.
Approaches to determining whether the two-star threshold has been met differ slightly by which Main Panel your Unit of Assessment in returned to.
| For UOA03, UOA04, UOA05, UOA11 & UOA12
|Main Panel A and Main Panel B request that submissions include additional indicators, as appropriate, of the quality of the underpinning research. Sub-panels will use the information provided in case studies, and may review the outputs in order to be assured that the quality threshold has been met (PCWM, para 319).|
MPA & MPB exemplar statements of 2* quality from REF2014
|For UOA13, UOA17, UOA20, UOA23, UOA24, UOA27, UOA28, UOA32 & UOA34
|Main Panel C and Main Panel D state that submitting institutions should ensure case studies fulfils the threshold criteria for quality and do not expect to read underpinning research as a matter of course. The preference of Main Panel C and Main Panel D is that submitting institutions provide indicators of the research quality (paras 320-322), such as (and not limited to):
If no indicators of quality are available, the sub-panel will review the item to satisfy themselves that it does reach the quality threshold (para 323).
|MPC & MPD exemplar statements of 2* quality from REF2014
Criteria and definitions of quality levels
Full details of the criteria for and definitions of quality levels are available for each main panel as follows:
Main Panel A – Panel Criteria and Working Methods paras 197-201
Main Panel B – Panel Criteria and Working Methods para 202a-e
Main Panel C – Panel Criteria and Working Methods para 203a-e
Main Panel D – Panel Criteria and Working Methods paras 204-205a-e
Cross-referencing to Section 2 narrative
Each output should be identified as R.1, R.2 etc and cross-referenced in the Section 2 narrative.
Return to REF2021 ICS Contents.