# data[].attributes.headline
Ongoing research to evaluate the impact of introducing narrative Cvs

# data[].attributes.subject
Ongoing research to evaluate the impact of introducing narrative Cvs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Undisciplined

Portfolios

Peer Review

Narratives

MetaROR

Matthew

GRAIL

Funder Data Platform

AGORRA

AFIRE

Resources

Through articles, reports, working papers, experiments and practical tools, RoRI aims to supply the evidence and data that people and organisations need to change research for the better. All RoRI publications and resources are openly available to everyone.

Projects

Find out about our flagship current projects for 2023 to 2024 and our pilot projects from 2019 to 2022.

About

At its heart, research on research is about ensuring that we have the evidence we need to realise the full potential of research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The uses and evaluation of researchers' narrative CVs

# data[].attributes.headline
Online course on narrative CV (developed by Glasgow University)

# data[].attributes.subject
Online course on narrative CV (developed by Glasgow University)

# data[].attributes.headline
Critical Perspective on the shift to Narrative CV

# data[].attributes.subject
Critical Perspective on the shift to Narrative CV

# data[].attributes.headline
 A Funder Perspective (UKRI) on the Narrative CV- Webinar

# data[].attributes.subject
 A Funder Perspective (UKRI) on the Narrative CV- Webinar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, conference, huddle, and training rooms, as well as executive offices and classrooms. Founded in 2011, Zoom helps businesses and organizations bring their teams together in a frictionless environment to get more done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Documents

Details

General guidance on filling out your R4RI can be found on the UKRI website. However, each application is different and the R4RI template can be used in assessment in multiple ways. Please refer to the specific funding opportunity guidance for details on how it will be assessed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) template

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) is a flexible template designed to allow you to showcase relevant skills and experience. The four modules provide a framework for inputting these.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tips to get you started on your Narrative CV

# data[].attributes.subject
Tips to get you started on your Narrative CV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Narrative CVs: Tips for Getting Started | University of Dundee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) is a flexible narrative CV template. It's designed to help you, or your team, evidence a wider range of skills and experience (than a traditional academic CV) when applying for UKRI funding opportunities.

R4RI is halfway between a CV and cover letter, and provides the space to explain the context of your achievements.

Throughout 2022 and 2023, UKRI are rolling out the format across all funding opportunities that require track record information.

The guidance to support you in completing your R4RI may differ slightly between funding opportunities and research councils. However, the headings are used by UKRI consistently. You should consider the information on this page as general guidance.

R4RI is based on the Royal Society's Résumé for Researchers (R4R) but has been adapted to be more inclusive of UKRI's research and innovation communities.

If you are an applicant or assessor who has used R4RI before, we invite you to provide feedback on R4RI through this survey.

When to use R4RI

The funding opportunity you are applying for will include information on whether you must submit an R4RI or a traditional CV.

Currently, we are only piloting R4RI for some of our funding opportunities. You must refer to the specific guidance for the funding opportunity for information on which CV format to use.

You must not use R4RI unless you are asked to do so.

Download the R4RI template for applications through Je-S

The Résumé for Research and Innovation template is available as a DOCX file.
Download the R4RI template.
Only use this template if you are required to upload an R4RI to an opportunity being run through the Joint Electronic Submissions (Je-S) system.

You do not need to use this template if you are applying on the UKRI Funding Service as R4RI information is captured through the digital application.

How to fill out your R4RI

The Résumé for Research and Innovation is designed to be flexible. Your R4RI should be unique to you and to the funding opportunity.

R4RI replaces the track record section of the case for support.

Filling in the four modules

The four modules are designed to make you think about the breadth of your experience in the context of your application.

You can include as much information as you like within each module (or leave modules blank), so long as it follows the format requirements below and specific funding opportunity guidance. You should also look at the funding opportunity guidance for any specific instructions for your R4RI.

The modules are:

contributions to the generation of new ideas, tools, methodologies or knowledge

the development of others and maintenance of effective working relationships

contributions to the wider research and innovation community

contributions to broader research or innovation-users and audiences, and towards wider societal benefit

The module headings are to be used as a guide. Information on what to include can be found in the 'What you should include' section.

Format requirements in Je-S

In Je-S you must fill in the R4RI template using a single-spaced font in Arial 11 or another sans serif font of equivalent size.

The content should be written as an evidenced narrative, including both qualitative and quantitative evidence. You should avoid using lists where possible.

We usually limit the R4RI page length to two sides of A4 (not including the introduction and team composition table) for individual applicants. The margins used in the template are standard margins and should not be changed.

Please refer to the funding opportunity for specific guidance on page limits for teams. Any embedded help text may be deleted and does not count towards the page limit.

You must not add additional modules or tables to the template, unless you have been told you can do so. Footnotes should not be used.

You must not attach a separate publications list.

Format requirements in the UKRI Funding Service

In the UKRI Funding Service fonts and word count checking are automated. The standard word limit is 1000. Please refer to the funding opportunity for specific guidance on page limits.

You must not attach a separate publications list.

What you should include

R4RI is used across a diverse range of different funding opportunities. Therefore, you must refer to the specific funding opportunity guidance for information on what and who you should include.

Traditional CVs tend to focus on a narrow range of outputs, such as publications and successful funding. In your Résumé for Research and Innovation, we encourage you to share a wider range of skills and experience.

Primarily, your R4RI should focus on evidencing your ability and potential to carry out the proposal. This could mean using examples of previous outputs to demonstrate how you have been successful before or that you have expertise in a critical methodology.

When referring to outputs such as publications, please provide these as a digital object identifier (DOI) which can be hyperlinked to the publication where possible. This will also help you to save space in the R4RI template.

You should also describe other relevant skills, such as experience of managing collaborations or teams.

Additionally, R4RI gives you the opportunity to include evidence of other activities. These may be less relevant to the proposal itself, but demonstrate your experience of delivering UKRI's broader aims (for example, in UKRI's strategy, transforming tomorrow together). These could include activities such as public engagement, your contributions to peer review and research assessment, and data curation.

Other information to include if applying as a team

Teams should submit a single R4RI (not individual R4RIs for each team member) when applying to a funding opportunity. Only one R4RI should be submitted even for large teams across multiple organisations. Specific funding opportunities may change page limits for team R4RIs.

The team R4RI should describe only a selection of their past contributions that best evidence their ability to carry out the proposed project.

An individual's specific achievements can be fore fronted where appropriate, but the contributions described across the modules should demonstrate the appropriateness of the overall team. Different team members may be able to demonstrate complementary skills.

As a general rule, we would expect that anyone who would have previously been required to submit a traditional CV should be included in the team R4RI. But please refer to funding opportunity-specific guidance for who you must include.

A table is included at the beginning of the template to allow you to refer to team members by their initials throughout the document.

Providing additional information

There's also space to provide additional information to describe any factors which may provide context for the rest of your R4RI (for example, details of career breaks if you wish to disclose them). However, you are not required to provide this information.

If you choose to provide additional information, this will be seen by the panel and reviewers, even if it references a sensitive issue. We encourage you to focus on how the issue has affected your career, rather than expanding on the issue itself.

Do not use this section to describe additional skills, experiences or outputs, as this information will not be assessed.

When using R4RI in Je-S, additional information does not count towards the page limit.

In the UKRI Funding Service you will be given an extra 500 words to provide additional information.

How to submit your R4RI

Submitting your R4RI via Je-S

You should upload your R4RI in the Joint Electronic Submission (Je-S) system under the CV attachment, unless the funding opportunity guidance tells you otherwise. You should not upload a traditional CV when submitting a R4RI.

Submitting your R4RI via the UKRI Funding Service

In the UKRI Funding Service your R4RI will be included under the section where you describe the teams capability.

Typically we will ask you for this information via a digital textbox, rather than asking you to upload a copy of the template.

Assessment process

R4RI is used to inform the assessment of the proposal overall and will not be viewed in isolation. Assessors will never be asked to score individual modules.

Your R4RI will form part of the proposal documentation, and will be used to support your application in showing how your skills and experience make you the best person (or team) to carry out the proposed project. It is not an assessment of your writing or language skills.

As part of UKRI's commitment to support the recommendations and principles set out by the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), UKRI reviewers and panel members are advised not to use metrics, such as journal impact factors:

as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual outputs

to assess an applicant's contributions

to make funding decisions

Sharing of information

Your completed R4RI will be seen by both reviewers and panel members and won't be anonymised. It will be treated in the same way as traditional CVs and shared with UKRI colleagues for evaluation purposes.

All personal data provided to UKRI in connection to funding applications will be processed in accordance with current UK data protection legislation and the EU General Data Protection Regulations 2016/679 (GDPR) where appropriate.

Find out more about how we use information provided in research funding applications in our 'Use of Grant Proposal and Training Grant information addendum'.

Further information on how we use personal data, and how you can exercise your rights as a data subject, can be found in the UKRI privacy notice.

Why we've introduced R4RI

UKRI committed to adopting a narrative CV based on the Royal Society's Résumé for Researchers (R4R) for all funding opportunities requiring track record information in April 2021. We officially launched R4RI in December 2021, and will be rolling out the format across UKRI throughout 2022 and 2023.

R4RI is one part of a wider ambition to create a more inclusive and supportive research and innovation culture.

Traditional academic CVs are often narrowly focused and tend to include limited information beyond education history, publications and successful funding. R4RI gives applicants the opportunity to:

showcase the many other contributions they make to the research and innovation community

highlight essential skills, such as managing teams or collaborations, as well as outputs.

The format also allows better description of varied career paths, reduces focus on continuous productivity and enables a greater diversity of people to be recognised.

Applicants are able to put their skills and experience in context to aid reviewers or panel members who may be less familiar with the discipline or sector to understand the significance and impact.

R4RI also reduces focus on lists and quantity of outputs, and increases focus on quality of outputs, in line with UKRI's commitment to DORA and to responsible research assessment.

Supporting the research and innovation community adoption of R4RI-like narrative CVs

To support the sector-wide adoption of R4RI-like narrative CVs, UKRI has created communities of practice.

The Joint Funders Group explores shared approaches towards adoption of R4R-like CVs in funding decisions. Members are co-developing a range of resources that support its use, including training and evaluation.

Browse the Funding uses Résumé Resources Library.

The Alternative Uses Group, co-developed in partnership with Universities UK, complements the efforts of the Joint Funders Group. Members explore the alternative applications of R4RI-like CVs in a range of processes, from recruitment and promotion, to personal and professional development.

Browse the Alternative uses Résumé Resources Library.

Contact us

For queries on how to use R4RI, please use the contact details on the funding opportunity you are applying for.

If you are an applicant or assessor who has used R4RI before, we invite you to provide feedback on R4RI through this survey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) guidance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) is a flexible narrative CV template. It's designed to help you, or your team, evidence a wider range of skills and experience (than a traditional academic CV) when applying for UKRI funding opportunities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Researchers sharing their experience of preparing narrative CVs

# data[].attributes.subject
Researchers sharing their experience of preparing narrative CVs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read our case-studies to find out how others got on with developing a narrative CV, and what advice they have for individuals and teams working with the new format.

# data[].attributes.headline
The DORA declaration- challenging approaches to research assesment

# data[].attributes.subject
The DORA declaration- challenging approaches to research assesment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is a pressing need to improve the ways in which the output of scientific research is evaluated by funding agencies, academic institutions, and other parties.To address this issue, a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals met during the Annual Meeting of The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) in San Francisco, CA, on December 16, 2012. The group developed a set of recommendations, referred to as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. We invite interested parties across all scientific disciplines to indicate their support by adding their names to this Declaration.

The outputs from scientific research are many and varied, including: research articles reporting new knowledge, data, reagents, and software; intellectual property; and highly trained young scientists. Funding agencies, institutions that employ scientists, and scientists themselves, all have a desire, and need, to assess the quality and impact of scientific outputs. It is thus imperative that scientific output is measured accurately and evaluated wisely.

The Journal Impact Factor is frequently used as the primary parameter with which to compare the scientific output of individuals and institutions. The Journal Impact Factor, as calculated by Thomson Reuters*, was originally created as a tool to help librarians identify journals to purchase, not as a measure of the scientific quality of research in an article. With that in mind, it is critical to understand that the Journal Impact Factor has a number of well-documented deficiencies as a tool for research assessment. These limitations include: A) citation distributions within journals are highly skewed [1-3]; B) the properties of the Journal Impact Factor are field-specific: it is a composite of multiple, highly diverse article types, including primary research papers and reviews [1, 4]; C) Journal Impact Factors can be manipulated (or "gamed") by editorial policy [5]; and D) data used to calculate the Journal Impact Factors are neither transparent nor openly available to the public [4, 6, 7]. Below we make a number of recommendations for improving the way in which the quality of research output is evaluated. Outputs other than research articles will grow in importance in assessing research effectiveness in the future, but the peer-reviewed research paper will remain a central research output that informs research assessment. Our recommendations therefore focus primarily on practices relating to research articles published in peer-reviewed journals but can and should be extended by recognizing additional products, such as datasets, as important research outputs. These recommendations are aimed at funding agencies, academic institutions, journals, organizations that supply metrics, and individual researchers.

A number of themes run through these recommendations:

the need to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, in funding, appointment, and promotion considerations;

the need to assess research on its own merits rather than on the basis of the journal in which the research is published; and

the need to capitalize on the opportunities provided by online publication (such as relaxing unnecessary limits on the number of words, figures, and references in articles, and exploring new indicators of significance and impact).

We recognize that many funding agencies, institutions, publishers, and researchers are already encouraging improved practices in research assessment. Such steps are beginning to increase the momentum toward more sophisticated and meaningful approaches to research evaluation that can now be built upon and adopted by all of the key constituencies involved.

The signatories of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment support the adoption of the following practices in research assessment.
General Recommendation
1. Do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist's contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.
For funding agencies
2. Be explicit about the criteria used in evaluating the scientific productivity of grant applicants and clearly highlight, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.

3. For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.
For institutions
4. Be explicit about the criteria used to reach hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, clearly highlighting, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.

5. For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all
research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.
For publishers
6. Greatly reduce emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting the metric in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics (e.g., 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor [8], SCImago [9], h-index, editorial and publication times, etc.) that provide a richer view of journal performance.

7. Make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift toward assessment based on the scientific content of an article rather than publication metrics of the journal in which it was published.

8. Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.

9. Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication [10].

10. Remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles, and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding.
For organizations that supply metrics
11. Be open and transparent by providing data and methods used to calculate all metrics.

12. Provide the data under a licence that allows unrestricted reuse, and provide computational access to data, where possible.

13. Be clear that inappropriate manipulation of metrics will not be tolerated; be explicit about what constitutes inappropriate manipulation and what measures will be taken to combat this.

14. Account for the variation in article types (e.g., reviews versus research articles), and in different subject areas when metrics are used, aggregated, or compared.
For researchers
15. When involved in committees making decisions about funding, hiring, tenure, or promotion, make assessments based on scientific content rather than publication metrics.

16. Wherever appropriate, cite primary literature in which observations are first reported rather than reviews in order to give credit where credit is due.

17. Use a range of article metrics and indicators on personal/supporting statements, as evidence of the impact of individual published articles and other research outputs [11].

18. Challenge research assessment practices that rely inappropriately on Journal Impact Factors and promote and teach best practice that focuses on the value and influence of specific research outputs.
References

1. Adler, R., Ewing, J., and Taylor, P. (2008) Citation statistics. A report from the International Mathematical Union.

2. Seglen, P.O. (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314, 498-502.

3. Editorial (2005). Not so deep impact. Nature 435, 1003-1004.

4. Vanclay, J.K. (2012) Impact Factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification. Scientometric 92, 211-238.

5. The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006). The impact factor game. PLoS Med 3(6): e291 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.

6. Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. J. Cell Biol. 179, 1091-1092.

7. Rossner M., Van Epps H., and Hill E. (2008). Irreproducible results: A response to Thomson Scientific. J. Cell Biol. 180, 254-255.

8. http://www.eigenfactor.org/

9. http://www.scimagojr.com/

10. http://opencitations.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/open-letter-to-publishers

11. http://altmetrics.org/tools/

*The Journal Impact Factor is now published by Clarivate Analytics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) recognizes the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated.

# data[].attributes.headline
Background about the introduction of the Narrative CV

# data[].attributes.subject
Background about the introduction of the Narrative CV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Discovery - the University of Dundee Research Portal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

In this video, Elizabeth Adams from Scafell Coaching introduces narrative CVs, and shows how you go about writing yours. This should be used along with the workbook which contains practical examples and tips to get started.

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this

@misc{38e0539c226d47dfa3a987c8f401c4b0,

title = "Narrative CVs: the background",

abstract = "In this video, Elizabeth Adams from Scafell Coaching introduces narrative CVs, and shows how you go about writing yours. This should be used along with the workbook which contains practical examples and tips to get started.",

author = "Elizabeth Adams and Sandra Oza",

note = "Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Elizabeth Adams.",

doi = "10.20933/100001296",

publisher = "University of Dundee",

}

TY - ADVS

T1 - Narrative CVs

T2 - the background

AU - Adams, Elizabeth

A2 - Oza, Sandra

N1 - Copyright: © 2023 Elizabeth Adams.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - In this video, Elizabeth Adams from Scafell Coaching introduces narrative CVs, and shows how you go about writing yours. This should be used along with the workbook which contains practical examples and tips to get started.

AB - In this video, Elizabeth Adams from Scafell Coaching introduces narrative CVs, and shows how you go about writing yours. This should be used along with the workbook which contains practical examples and tips to get started.

UR - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekg3WSiJ04s

U2 - 10.20933/100001296

DO - 10.20933/100001296

M3 - Digital or Visual Products

PB - University of Dundee

CY - Dundee

ER -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this video, Elizabeth Adams from Scafell Coaching introduces narrative CVs, and shows how you go about writing yours. This should be used along with the workbook which contains practical examples and tips to get started. @misc{38e0539c226d47dfa3a987c8f401c4b0, title = "Narrative CVs: the background", abstract = "In this video, Elizabeth Adams from Scafell Coaching introduces narrative CVs, and shows how you go about writing yours.

# data[].attributes.headline
Royal Society guidelines on narrative CV

# data[].attributes.subject
Royal Society guidelines on narrative CV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aiming to support the evaluation of individuals' varied contributions to research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'How to write a narrative CVs for funding applications' webinar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

The Peer Exchange Platform for Narrative-style CVs (PEP-CV) is a resource for the research and innovation community developed by a partnership between funding agencies and researchers. The goal of PEP-CV is to become a platform for everyone active in the research and innovation sector to engage in simple peer mentoring exchanges to discuss how to best present a diverse range of experiences, achievements, and career paths in all types of narrative-style CVs.

Download the whitepaper

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to content The Peer Exchange Platform for Narrative-style CVs (PEP-CV) is a resource for the research and innovation community developed by a partnership between funding agencies and researchers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Examples of activities that could go in the 4 sections

# data[].attributes.subject
Examples of activities that could go in the 4 sections

# data[].attributes.body
These are examples shared by participants from another workshop. Remember that some activities may fit into different sections. You have to pick your examples carefully to best fit the a target application.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Doesn't this format favour those with native English?

2. Isn't it just boasting?

3. How can these narratives be as objective as a traditional CV?

4. How are senior academics meant to distil their experience into the restricted word count?

5. What should I do about 'evidence'?

6. How do we know what 'good' looks like?

7. Don't they create more work than a traditional CV?

8. Isn't it the same material as a cover letter?

9. Do the funders really value these wider contributions?

10. It isn't fair that the goalposts have shifted

11. How do I talk about impact when everything I do is part of a team?

12. What do we do about team NCVs?

13. How do we find time for these extra activities?

ARRC Project Narrative CV FAQs © 2024 by The ARRC Project, University of Cambridge is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We have compiled this list of frequently asked questions to help respond to some of the issues that consistently emerge when we present our Narrative CV experiment or give workshops on writing and evaluating the Narrative CV. Let us know which questions you would add to the list! arrcproject@admin.cam.ac.uk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Auditorium: a research culture and researcher development blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Dr Elizabeth Adams, Independent Coach and Research Culture Consultant at Scafell Coaching. In early 2021, I was part of a University of Glasgow project on the use of narrative CVs in funding app…

# data[].attributes.headline
Padlet prepared by others on Narrative CVs

# data[].attributes.subject
Padlet prepared by others on Narrative CVs