It may be that you’ve not received the email as you are not eligible for this exercise. Colleagues eligible under the REF2021 criteria* as at 1 December 2024 have been asked to participate in the exercise.

*Academic staff with a contract of employment of 0.2 FTE or greater, on the payroll of the submitting institution on the census date, whose primary employment function is to undertake either ‘research only’ or ‘teaching and research'. Research assistants and associates are not eligible to be returned to the REF unless, exceptionally, they meet the definition of an independent researcher on the census date and satisfy the above requirements. RAs are not eligible purely on the basis that they are named on research outputs.

If you think you should be eligible because you have research in your contract, are employed more than 0.2FTE as at 31 December 2024 and are not a research assistant or research associate, please contact FHumsRRE@manchester.ac.uk.

If you currently on absence leave from the University, there is no requirement for you to complete the RRE this year.

We use the REF2021 definition of original research.

Definition of research for the REF2021:

1. For the purposes of the REF, research is defined as a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared.
2. It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce, industry, and to the public and voluntary sectors; scholarships; the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances, artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes, including design and construction.
   
   It excludes routine testing and routine analysis of materials, components and processes such as for the maintenance of national standards, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques. It also excludes the development of teaching materials that do not embody original research.
   
   
3. It includes research that is published, disseminated or made publicly available in the form of assessable research outputs, and confidential reports.

The review of outputs will be conducted via Departmental review teams with oversight by School Research Directors and the Vice Dean for Research.

Reviewers will assess outputs based on the REF2021 criteria of originality, significance and rigour (see below).

Originality is the extent to which the output makes an important and innovative contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field. Research outputs that demonstrate originality may do one or more of the following:

• produce and interpret new empirical findings or new material;
• engage with new and/or complex problems; develop innovative research methods, methodologies and analytical techniques;
• show imaginative and creative scope; provide new arguments and/or new forms of expression, formal innovations, interpretations and/or insights;
• collect and engage with novel types of data; and/or advance theory or the analysis of doctrine, policy or practice, and new forms of expression.

Significance is the extent to which the work has influenced, or has the capacity to influence, knowledge and scholarly thought, or the development and understanding of policy and/or practice.

Rigour is the extent to which the work demonstrates intellectual coherence and integrity, and adopts robust and appropriate concepts, analyses, sources, theories and/or methodologies.

RRE grades may be revised and recalibrated as part of the preparation of the REF 2029 submission, and in light of new information about the output.

It is recognized that some staff may have no 3*/4*outputs to propose at this stage in the REF cycle in which case, you should simply confirm by contacting FHumsRRE@manchester.ac.uk.

2* research is often the bedrock upon which 3* and 4* research is built. In all disciplines, research outputs which may not be considered internationally excellent or world-leading nonetheless play a crucial role in the research ecosystem by sharing data, supporting early enquiries, or following up on more significant advances.

All researchers are likely to publish 2* outputs, but we expect that they will also publish research that would be judged as 3* or above. For the purposes of the RRE, in order to keep the reviewing task to a manageable load and to help with future REF preparation, we only request outputs reflecting higher quality research to be proposed.

The review of outputs will be conducted through Departmental Reviewer pools.

This process will take place between late March and early June. Grades are expected to be visible in the Pure system by mid-June.

Those outputs that were not reviewed in the 2024 exercise do not need to be requested again as they will automatically be picked up for review in this RRE cycle.

Your RRE proposed outputs and their grades will never be publicly visible. Individuals can see their own grades in Pure, and a small number of staff with administrative privileges are able to look at all RRE scores.

As we progress plans for REF2029 preparations, scores will also be made available to colleagues involved in those preparations, i.e. REF2029 Unit of Assessment (UOA) leads, Associate Deans/Vice Dean for Research and Innovation, Heads of school/divisions.

This first RRE since REF2021 submission will begin the process of collecting the pool of outputs for potential REF2029 submission and help with our preparations.

As we collate reviewed outputs in subsequent years, Heads of School use RRE grades as one indicator to inform their assessment of the quality of the aggregate research output profile (i.e. the School and REF2029 UOA profiles) and provides key background data to support their decision making for the REF2029 submission in a fair and transparent manner.

They are aware that RRE grades for specific outputs may be revised and recalibrated by the UOA coordinating team as part of the preparation of the REF2029 submission, and in light of new information about the output, such as subsequent citation rates or prizes.

When assessing an individual's research profile for probation or promotion other indicators of output quality pertinent to the discipline or field are used as the primary source (peer review, referee comments, article citations, book reviews, etc.). The assessment of output quality is one part of the assessment of overall research performance, along with the record of PGR supervision, research funding, etc. as detailed in the probation and promotion guidelines. This is in line with the implementation of the Statement of Research Contribution Expectations.

RRE grades should not be presented in the paperwork for probation or promotion by either the applicant or in accompanying supporting statements; or introduced in discussions in probation and promotion committees.

Output grades are internal scores and subject to change following potential REF UOA re-reviews or calibration exercises. They should not be included on CVs but may be discussed during P&DRs.

Formative evaluation (giving individuals feedback on their outputs) is not part of RRE, but your Head of Department/Research Co-ordinator can give you advice and support about improving the quality of your research outputs.