SoPS Research Workload Allocation Policy

1. Dual pathway for initiating cases

Staff can self-apply for an increased research allocation, and the Director of Research can also nominate candidates (with their consent). (Policy Section 5.5)

2. Research Committee as advisory body

The Research Committee assesses research merit and recommends allocation tiers. The Workload Committee makes the final decision based on teaching capacity. (Policy Section 5.6)

3. Three-year rolling assessment window

Research portfolios are assessed over a rolling 3-year window, recognising that research output is variable from year to year. (Policy Section 4.1)

4. Two-year allocation terms for both 50% and 60%

Both 50% and 60% research allocations are granted for fixed 2-year terms aligned with FMHHS workload cycles. (The stand-down period that follows is the subject of Question 8 below.) (Policy Section 5.4)

5. Committee assigns allocation tier

Applicants apply generally for an increased research allocation. The Research Committee determines whether the appropriate tier is 50% or 60% — applicants do not need to choose. (Policy Section 5.5b)

6. Applicants not expected to find teaching replacements

Applicants provide their current teaching context for information, but are not expected to find their own replacement. Teaching reassignment is a matter for Course Directors and the Workload Committee. (Policy Section 5.5b)

7. Transparency of allocation decisions

Allocation decisions should be open and transparent — all staff know who holds increased research allocations and on what basis. This is consistent with the FMHHS model's workload transparency requirements. (Policy Section 10)

8. One-year stand-down period

After completing a 2-year increased research allocation, staff must wait 1 year before reapplying. This ensures equitable access and allows more staff to benefit over time. (Policy Section 5.4)

9. Fellowship cooling-off period

Staff who have held a major external fellowship (e.g., DECRA, Future Fellowship, Investigator Grant) for 2 or more years must wait at least 1 year after the fellowship ends before applying for an increased research allocation under this policy. (Policy Section 5.4)

10. Indicative benchmarks

The policy proposes indicative benchmarks for research output by career level (e.g., Level B: 3–6 peer-reviewed outputs over 3 years). For your sub-discipline, are these benchmarks: (Policy Section 4.4)

11. Discipline modifiers

The policy includes discipline-specific modifiers that adjust expectations based on sub-discipline norms (e.g., longer timelines for clinical RCTs, conference papers for computational). Are these modifiers fair and complete for your sub-discipline? (Policy Sections 4.4, 5.3)

12. Authorship weighting

Should first/last-author papers carry more weight than middle-author positions on large-team papers when assessing research output? (Policy Section 4.3)

13. Use of Workday research narrative

Should the Workday annual research narrative be used as the primary self-assessment vehicle for this policy, rather than creating additional paperwork? (Policy Section 10)

14. Overall, do you support the direction of this policy?