Quantitative CV-based indicators for research quality, validated by peer review

Abstract

In a university, research assessments are organized at different policy levels (faculties, research council) in different contexts (funding, council membership, personnel evaluations). Each evaluation requires its own focus and methodology. To conduct a coherent research policy however, data on which different assessments are based should be well coordinated. A common set of core indicators for any type of research assessment can provide a supportive and objectivating tool for evaluations at different institutional levels and at the same time promote coherent decision-making. The same indicators can also form the basis for a 'light touch' monitoring instrument, signalling when and where a more thorough evaluation could be considered. This poster paper shows how peer review results were used to validate a set of quantitative indicators for research quality for a first series of disciplines. The indicators correspond to categories in the university's standard CV-format. Per discipline, specific indicators are identified corresponding to their own publication and funding characteristics. Also more globally valid indicators are identified after normalization for discipline-characteristic performance levels. The method can be applied to any system where peer ratings and quantitative performance measures, both reliable and sufficiently detailed, can be combined for the same entities.