Send us a link
The UK Government’s research evaluation system encourages a higher quantity and lower quality of work from academics, according to a recent paper.
The targeted research Missions set up under Horizon Europe are turning three years old this year, and their ambitious logic is facing its first test in an upcoming review at the midpoint of the EU's €95.9 billion research programme.
In a landmark decision this week, the European Research Council (ERC) announced changes to its application forms and evaluation procedures that will be implemented starting with the 2024 calls for proposals.
Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing.
Dominant approaches to research quality rest on the assumption that academic peers are the only relevant stakeholders in its assessment. In contrast, impact assessment frameworks recognize a large and heterogeneous set of actors as stakeholders.
China created a research evaluation system based on publications indexed in the SCI and on the Journal Impact Factor, which helped China become the largest contributor to scientific literature and increase the position of its universities in global rankings.
More than resource allocations, evaluations of funding applications have become central instances for status bestowal in academia. Much attention in past literature has been devoted to grasping the status consequences of prominent funding evaluations.
The Swiss National Science Foundation's 'narrative' template seeks evidence of applicants' wider contributions to science.
From a research data repositories’ perspective, offering research data management services in line with the FAIR principles is becoming increasingly important. However, there exists no globally established and trusted approach to evaluate FAIRness to date. This article applies five different available FAIRness evaluation approaches to selected data archived in the World Data Center for Climate (WDCC).
This article explores how factors relating to grades and grading affect the correctness of choices that grant-review panels make among submitted proposals. It seeks to identify interventions in panel design that may be expected to increase the correctness of choices.
LERU published a position paper “A Pathway towards Multidimensional Academic” to provide a LERU framework for assessing researchers careers. The report elaborates on three perspectives that form the basis of the framework for the assessment of research.
Current programme evaluations do not adequately measure the skills and characteristics of individuals and collectives doing transdisciplinary research.
The focus on a narrow set of metrics leads to a lack of diversity in the types of leader and institution that win funding.
The role they play in evaluations for graduate school admissions, fellowships and jobs can be baffling.
The SNSF's National Research Council decides whether or not to fund applications. The 89 evaluation panels handle the preparatory work on which it bases its decisions, assessing several thousand applications each year.
This post draws on a recent analysis of different impact evaluation tools to explore how they constitute and direct conceptions of research impact.
Female representation now proportionate to UK academia as a whole, even if ethnic minorities still fall short.
The University of Liverpool is planning to make lay-offs on the basis of controversial measures. How should the global movement for responsible research respond?
For the first time prestigious funder has explicitly told academics they must not include metric when applying for grants.
A new study of grants awarded to early-career researchers by Europe's premier science agency is reviving an old controversy over the way governments decide which scientists get research money, and which do not.
Wider take-up by academics requires both relevance to specific disciplines and accessibility across disciplines, says Camille Kandiko Howson.
Acting as a reviewer is considered a substantial part of the role-bundle of the academic profession. However, little is known about academics' motivation to act as reviewers.
When it comes to mistaken judgments, there is more than one kind of error.
A responsible research assessment would incentivise, reflect and reward the plural characteristics of high-quality research, in support of diverse and inclusive research cultures.
Systems for assessing scientists' work must properly account for a lost year of research - especially for female researchers.
In recent years, numerous initiatives have highlighted linguistic biases embedded in current evaluation processes and have called for change. The DORA-hosted community discussion on multilingualism in scholarly evaluation was inspired by actions others have taken to address these issues.
What are the pitfalls of using AI as a citation evaluation tool?
A better balance between teaching and research duties, greater recognition of team performances and the elimination of simplistic assessment criteria would improve the systems of recognition and rewards in academia.
