Update guide-intro.qmd

guide-intro.qmd

@@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ With momentum for research assessment reform building globally, there is an oppo
 
 ## Open research and research assessment reform
 
-The history of research assessment reform can be characterised in terms of an evolution from an agenda focused almost exclusively on the use of publication-based metrics towards a broader framework of responsible research assessment (Figure 1). This broader, more instrumental agenda considers research assessment as a means of enabling the best researchers to flourish, promoting diversity and inclusion, and supporting the production of high-quality research – in short, as a means to engineer research culture. Within this agenda, there has been growing attention to the role of open research practices in relation to research assessment. 
+The history of research assessment reform can be characterised in terms of an evolution from an agenda focused almost exclusively on the use of publication-based metrics towards a broader framework of responsible research assessment (@fig-milestones). This broader, more instrumental agenda considers research assessment as a means of enabling the best researchers to flourish, promoting diversity and inclusion, and supporting the production of high-quality research – in short, as a means to engineer research culture. Within this agenda, there has been growing attention to the role of open research practices in relation to research assessment. 
 
-![Figure 1. Milestones in the history of research assessment reform](images/figures/researchassessment-timeline.jpg)
+![Milestones in the history of research assessment reform](images/figures/researchassessment-timeline.jpg){fig-milestones}
 
 Although the [San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment](https://sfdora.org/read/) (DORA, 2013), the founding text of research assessment reform, was primarily concerned with research publications and related metrics, its second recommendation adumbrates a broader assessment agenda:
 
@@ -99,9 +99,9 @@ In the [Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment](https://coara.eu/agreement/t
 
 The greater emphasis on open research in the research assessment reform agenda is relatively recent, and national and institutional research assessment policies have so far reflected a prevailing focus on publications and the responsible use of publication metrics. In a survey undertaken by the OR4 project in 2023, 44 or 73% of 60 institutions stated that they had a responsible research assessment statement or policy. The majority of these were focused on the responsible use of publication metrics.^[Barnett, J. at al. (2024). 'OR4 Research Assessment Survey Report'. Working Paper No 5. <https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/z52cn>.] In scope and terminology many of these statements follow and reference DORA and the Leiden Manifesto. 
 
-The almost exclusive focus on the assessment of research publications is understandable, given their prominence in the systems of academic recognition and reward. In REF 2021, of 185,353 outputs submitted, 180,509 or 97.4% fell into the main academic publications categories A-E (including authored and edited books, book chapters, journal articles and conference contributions). 154,826 outputs or 83.5% of the total were journal articles. The number of research data sets and databases submitted was 31; the number of software outputs was 11 (Figure 2).^[REF 2021 Submitted outputs' details. <https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/outputs>.]  
+The almost exclusive focus on the assessment of research publications is understandable, given their prominence in the systems of academic recognition and reward. In REF 2021, of 185,353 outputs submitted, 180,509 or 97.4% fell into the main academic publications categories A-E (including authored and edited books, book chapters, journal articles and conference contributions). 154,826 outputs or 83.5% of the total were journal articles. The number of research data sets and databases submitted was 31; the number of software outputs was 11 (@fig-refoutputs).^[REF 2021 Submitted outputs' details. <https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/outputs>.]  
 
-![Figure 2. REF 2021 submitted outputs by output type](images/figures/ref-outputs.png)
+![REF 2021 submitted outputs by output type](images/figures/ref-outputs.png){fig-refoutputs}
 
 This heavily skewed distribution is the focus of the [Hidden REF](https://hidden-ref.org/) initiative, which emerged in the runup to the 2021 REF. This campaign highlighted the lack of representation in submissions for non-academic research contributors (such as data scientists, technicians and research software engineers) and for 'non-traditional' outputs (i.e. other than publications). Now that the UK is on track for REF 2029, the Hidden REF is campaigning on a [5% manifesto](https://hidden-ref.org/the-5-percent-manifesto/): a target for HEIs to submit at least 5% of non-traditional research outputs. This will be a challenging target to meet, given that in REF 2021 only 2.4% of non-traditional outputs were submitted.