Due to the global situation caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, this event will be postponed. The new dates will be established as soon as it is feasible. For more information, please visit the organiser’s website.
This workshop is co-organised by ALLEA (All European Academies) and the GYA and addresses two questions that are central to the conduct of scholarly work:
1) Why do we evaluate output of publicly funded research?
2) How do we make the evaluation match its purpose?
Boon Han Lim (Malaysia) and alumnus Martin Dominik (UK) represent GYA in the steering committee of the workshop.
Register for the event here.
The exponential increase in research output during the last few decades and increased competition among scholars for limited resources favoured the adoption of metrics to assess scientific merit. The best-known quantitative indicators are journal impact factor, citation index of journal publications and institutional rankings. Yet, these metrics are not fit for purpose because they create incentives that are detrimental to the intention of fostering the research endeavour, promoting progress in scholarly work, and benefiting society. Despite intentions to revert this development, many juries still evaluate researchers on the basis of their accumulated journal impact factor, and university rankings continue to enjoy high prominence.
While different science and policy stakeholders continue to strive for a better balance between quantitative and qualitative research assessments by introducing novel criteria and developing new methods, this workshop takes a broader perspective by discussing more fundamental issues, such as the future direction of research, reconciling the values in research with incentives and rewards, excellence in research, and the contribution of research assessments to better scholarly work.