Study found that preliminary criterion scores fully account for racial disparities - yet do not explain all of the variability - in preliminary overall impact scores.

New study says student evaluations of teaching are still deeply flawed measures of teaching effectiveness, even when we assume they are unbiased and reliable.

Citations are ubiquitous in evaluating research, but how exactly they relate to what they are thought to measure is unclear. This article investigates the relationships between citations, quality, and impact using a survey with an embedded experiment.

This paper presents a simple model of the lifecycle of scientific ideas that points to changes in scientist incentives as the cause of scientific stagnation. It explores ways to broaden how scientific productivity is measured and rewarded, involving both academic search engines such as Google Scholar measuring which contributions explore newer ideas and university administrators and funding agencies utilizing these new metrics in research evaluation.

The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. A recent survey examines how well the measure is accepted.

Research is a highly competitive profession where evaluation plays a central role. Yet such evaluations are often done in inappropriate ways that are damaging to individual careers, and to the profession.

A recent study finds a strong correlation between university revenues and their volume of publications and (field-normalized) citations. These results demonstrate empirically that international rankings are by and large richness measures and, therefore, can be interpreted only by introducing a measure of resources.

The rhetoric of "excellence" is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organizations, from art history to zoology. But does "excellence" actually mean anything?

The primary goal of research is to advance knowledge. For that knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous and transparent at all stages of design, execution and reporting. The authors developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKP) with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behavior that leads to trustworthy research.