What we do review
REF 2014 defined research generally as a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared. Within the School of Health Sciences it is assumed that such research will generally be evidenced by publications in peer-review journals.
The focus of the ROME panel is on monitoring and evaluating all articles
All papers fulfilling these criteria should be submitted to the panel by the most senior author who is a member of the School of Health Sciences following the guidance on the How does the process work? tab below.
We do not make a distinction between short communications, technical notes etc. and “full” papers as far as inclusion or exclusion is concerned but, in our fields, it is the “full” papers that are likely to be graded more highly.
There may be a small number of narrative reviews in which the synthesis of evidence or opinion is sufficiently strong to be regarded as leading to new insights. An example might be a review synthesising the opinions of a number of senior figures in a field, perhaps nominated by a professional or academic body, and generating a strong consensus view or guidelines or proposal for future directions. Such papers may be reviewed.
In most subject areas the requirement for full-peer review will exclude:
There is no need to submit such outputs to the panel (but they must still be lodged on USIR).
At present we are monitoring such articles but not grading them. Please unload these to USIR using the normal process (assuming they have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal).