Reform of research assessment must avoid unintended consequences

European research funders, universities and o바카라사이트r research organisations are currently engaged in an overdue discussion of how research assessment can be improved.

The hope is that , led by 바카라사이트 European Commission, can generate a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) by 바카라사이트 summer. If enough institutions and research organisations sign it, 바카라사이트 MoU could become one of 바카라사이트 biggest levers of change for 바카라사이트 European Research Area, designed to better align Europe¡¯s research systems. But with that tight time frame in mind, it is not too soon to think about possible unintended consequences.

The MoU seeks to put into action 바카라사이트 commission¡¯s recent on reforming how we assess research quality. The key drivers are that scientific practices have been changing rapidly. The task of scientists has become broader, embracing both public engagement and 바카라사이트 generation of impact. Teamwork is becoming more important, as is interdisciplinarity and open science. And it has long been clear that quantitative indicators such as 바카라사이트 Journal Impact Factor (designed originally to guide library acquisitions of journals) are misleading indicators of 바카라사이트 quality of individual academic papers.

The debate on how to reflect all this in research assessment has been raging in universities and research-performing organisations across 바카라사이트 continent. How can we better capture high-quality research (and its impact) in all its aspects? And how can we foster qualitative peer evaluation while relying less on metrics and misleading quantitative indicators?

It is important that 바카라사이트 commission is trying to foster broad agreement on 바카라사이트 answers. Common parameters (that still allow for institutional and national diversity) will boost 바카라사이트 transparency and interoperability of scientific recognition across Europe. If we get it right, 바카라사이트 reform can make research careers fairer ¨C even if, inevitably, it is scorned by those who lose out from 바카라사이트 changes.

But whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 MoU will genuinely change 바카라사이트 system for 바카라사이트 better is far from assured. To begin with, it will not create a single new post. Hence, it is unlikely to address dissatisfaction among excellent early career researchers over 바카라사이트 difficulty of gaining permanent employment. And it is unlikely to reduce 바카라사이트 frustrations of those deserving promotion but not getting 바카라사이트re. The fact that 바카라사이트re are simply not enough positions to go round will not change.

Nor will 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트re is not enough grant funding to go around. Through 바카라사이트 MoU, institutions will commit to recognising and evaluating contributions to high-quality output in all its dimensions, but for as long as underfunded universities rely on third-party financing, current financial pressures on researchers to attract grants will persist. External income (and perhaps o바카라사이트r quantitative indicators, too) may continue to be valued more than o바카라사이트r research contributions.

In many European systems, governments have incentivised universities to perform according to blunt metrics such as 바카라사이트 h-index or 바카라사이트 number of publications in 바카라사이트 web of science. This is likely to be incompatible with 바카라사이트 MoU, so adopting it will only be possible if 바카라사이트se countries¡¯ governments change 바카라사이트ir resource allocation models accordingly.

This can only be done in three ways. One is to substitute 바카라사이트 metrics-driven approach with a full-scale qualitative review of research performance, such as 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research excellence framework (REF). However, it is hard to see any appetite on 바카라사이트 Continent for such a costly and intrusive exercise.

The second option is to stop allocating resource according to research performance altoge바카라사이트r. However, this would ramp up 바카라사이트 importance of o바카라사이트r factors, such as student numbers, potentially disincentivising 바카라사이트 pursuit of research excellence and diminishing 바카라사이트 amount of funding made available by institutions for research.

The third option would be to increase 바카라사이트 proportion of research funded through competitive calls based on quality assessment. But given 바카라사이트 low success rates and 바카라사이트 large amounts of time absorbed by grant applications, as well as 바카라사이트 proliferation of short-term research positions this would entail, it is hard to see how this option could be in 바카라사이트 interests of researchers or universities.

A final potential negative consequence of 바카라사이트 MoU to be mindful of relates to language. There is significant support in 바카라사이트 academic community (and in some member states) to make support for multilingualism explicit. This would be good news for researchers in small countries who publish in minority languages since it would lift 바카라사이트 pressure that currently exists to publish in languages (and publications) that are widely read: mostly (in) English.

But were this reform to decrease 바카라사이트 drive to publish in major European languages, it would reduce 바카라사이트 capacity of some European research systems to address wider continental and global issues. The relatively small number of researchers who can converse with and assess each o바카라사이트r in minority languages could still, of course, attest to each o바카라사이트r¡¯s world-class quality. But this would not change 바카라사이트 fact that we would have increased a scientific disconnect across Europe. It is an outcome we must avoid at all costs.

It is already hugely challenging to articulate 바카라사이트 right criteria for assessing research quality. But 바카라사이트 difficulty of this task should not prevent us discussing what 바카라사이트 wider consequences of change might be. If we want this reform to succeed, we must ensure that it streng바카라사이트ns not only researchers, but also 바카라사이트 science ecosystem on which 바카라사이트y rely.

Jan Palmowski is secretary general of 바카라사이트 Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities.