Key Findings

Publication metrics continue to dominate assessment processes

Despite the progress made by initiatives to reform research assessment, most researchers think that metrics-based evaluations are still dominant – and often narrowly focused on journal publications with little consideration for the other outputs they produce (e.g. datasets).

In most cases, researchers’ positive contributions to society (the effects of their research outside of academia) and their wider contributions to research (e.g. teaching and supervising, peer review) are included in assessment processes. But what this means in practice can vary, and many researchers feel that these activities, if considered, are not weighted as highly as research outputs.

Researchers are mostly positive about their experiences of evaluation, with some notable concerns

Overall, researchers expressed favourable views on the ways they and their research are assessed. This was consistent across all demographics – though at differing levels, with researchers in Africa being the most positive and those in Europe being the least positive.

However, many researchers expressed substantive criticisms of existing assessment practices, including concerns about trust in the process, lack of consideration for research impact and quality, and the focus on criteria outside of their control. There were also mixed views on institutional support for evaluation processes, and the impact of research assessment reform initiatives.

Trends remain similar across different regions, disciplines and career stages

When segmenting our survey data by different demographic groups, most results followed the global pattern, with only slight variations. This is perhaps surprising considering the differing research assessment practices around the world, along with differing levels of engagement with existing reform initiatives.

Researchers consistently envision a more balanced future

When asked about the future of research assessment, researchers’ response was consistent across all demographics. In an ideal scenario, research outputs remain prominent, but there is a clear desire to increase consideration of researchers’ positive contributions to society, as well as their wider contributions to research and research culture. However, this further emphasises the tension noted above, as these activities are naturally more difficult to measure in a standardised way.

There is a clear tension between qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods

Throughout our survey, some conflicting opinions emerged on the benefits of metrics-based versus qualitative evaluation methods. Most researchers desire a balanced weighting, but this is tensioned by concerns about subjectivity and bias within qualitative assessments, as well as the increased workload involved.