Relative values of outputs and impact case studies

The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) had weightings based on awarding 65% for outputs, 20% for impact and 15% for environment. Within outputs, generally speaking each member of staff (full-time equivalent, FTE) was expected to produce four outputs. For impact, there was an overall narrative (worth 20% of the 20% allotted to impact) and a number of case studies depending on submission size, with two required for any submission, three for those with 15-24.9 staff, and successively an additional study for each 10 staff.

Given these rules of the game, it is possible to work out the value of each impact case study in terms of number of outputs, for a given submission size. This we show in the chart, below.

As shown, for submssions of 10 or more staff, each impact case study had the same effect on the overall outcome as at LEAST 5 outputs (i.e more than any one individual could contribute by way of outputs). For submissions including 18 or more staff, each impact case study had the same value as around 6-8 outputs. In other words a single 4-star impact case study had the same effect on the overall outcome, for a submission, as perhaps as many eight 4* outputs.