Search

In 1969, the BBC broadcast a landmark television series called Civilisation. It was one of the first television series to be broadcast in colour. In it, the art historian Kenneth Clark traced the rise of Western European civilisation through an examination of its art through the centuries. In an early episode he observed that there had been three or four times in history where Man had made a leap forward that would have been unthinkable under ordinary evolutionary conditions. He is thinking o...

En 1969, la BBC a diffusé une série télévisée historique intitulée Civilisation. C’était l’une des premières séries télévisées à être diffusées en couleur et l’historien de l’art Kenneth Clark y retraçait l’essor de la civilisation de l’Europe occidentale à travers l’examen de son art au fil des siècles. Dans l’un des premiers épisodes, il remarque qu’à trois ou quatre reprises dans l’histoire, l’évolution humaine a connu une accélération impensable en temps normal. L’Europe du xiie siècle, n...

Depuis plus de vingt ans, la communauté scientifique internationale affirme son soutien à la science ouverte comme fondement d’une recherche plus collaborative, transparente, intègre et proche de la société. Cette orientation s’est notamment traduite en France par l’adoption de deux Plans nationaux pour la science ouverte, en 2018 et 2021. Dans cette dynamique et à l’occasion de la présidence française du Conseil de l’Union européenne, la France a organisé les 4 et 5 février 2022 les Journées européennes de la science ouverte (OSEC). Cette conférence sur la transformation de l’écosystème de la recherche et de l’innovation en Europe a été l’occasion d’aborder en particulier la transparence des recherches en santé, l’avenir de l’édition scientifique et l’ouverture des codes et logiciels produits dans un contexte de recherche, mais aussi les transformations nécessaires de l’évaluation de la recherche, synthétisées dans l’Appel de Paris présenté lors de ces Journées et appelant à la création d’une coalition d’acteurs engagés pour une réforme du système actuel. Cet événement international a été organisé avec le soutien de l’Académie des sciences, du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, du Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), de l’Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM), du Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur (Hcéres), de l’Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR), de l’Université de Lorraine et de l’Université de Nantes.

Overview text to go here oidvh'wvojv[oj[owv[wiv[]pv combined to assess and incentivise the outputs and outcomes we want to see. To that end, today we publish Harnessing the Metric Tide, a short, sharp look once more at the role of metrics in UK research assessment, updating and reflecting on progress since The Metric Tide review was published back in 2015. Our headlines are ten recommendations on how to improve the handling and use of quantitative and qualitative information in the REF, and how best to boost the roll-out of responsible research assessment across the higher education and research sector.

This review was commissioned by the joint UK higher education (HE) funding bodies as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme (FRAP). It revisits the findings of the 2015 review The Metric Tide to take a fresh look at the use of indicators in research management and assessment. While this review feeds into the larger FRAP process, the authors have taken full advantage of their independence and sought to stimulate informed and robust discussion about the options and opportunities of future REF exercises. The report should be read in that spirit: as an input to ongoing FRAP deliberations, rather than a reflection of their likely or eventual conclusions. The report is written in three sections. Section 1 plots the development of the responsible research assessment agenda since 2015 with a focus on the impact of The Metric Tide review and progress against its recommendations. Section 2 revisits the potential use of metrics and indicators in any future REF exercise, and proposes an increased uptake of ‘data for good’. Section 3 considers opportunities to further support the roll-out of responsible research assessment policies and practices across the UK HE sector. Appendices include an overview of progress against the recommendations of The Metric Tide and a literature review. We make ten recommendations targeted at different actors in the UK research system, summarised as: 1: Put principles into practice. 2: Evaluate with the evaluated. 3: Redefine responsible metrics. 4: Revitalise the UK Forum. 5: Avoid all-metric approaches to REF. 6: Reform the REF over two cycles. 7: Simplify the purposes of REF. 8: Enhance environment statements. 9: Use data for good. 10: Rethink university rankings.

The research community has responded to the Covid-19 crisis with speed, creativity and innovation. But the pandemic has also shone fresh light on the inner workings of research, and has intensified scrutiny of how research is funded, practiced, disseminated and evaluated, and how research cultures can be made more open, inclusive and impactful. The uncertain possibilities of the present moment follow a period in which concern has intensified over long-standing concerns over aspects of research assessment. As attention shifts from describing these problems, towards designing and implementing solutions, efforts are now coalescing around the idea of responsible research assessment (RRA). This is an umbrella term for approaches to assessment which incentivise, reflect and reward the plural characteristics of high-quality research, in support of diverse and inclusive research cultures.This working paper explores what RRA is, and where it comes from, by outlining fifteen initiatives that have influenced the shape and direction of current RRA debates. It goes on to describe the responses that these have elicited, with a particular focus on the role and contribution of research funders, who have more freedom and agency to experiment and initiate change than other actors in research systems.The paper also presents the findings of a survey of RRA policies and practices in the participant organisations of the Global Research Council (GRC)—mainly national public funding agencies—with responses from 55 organisations worldwide.Published to coincide with a November 2020 Global Research Council (GRC) virtual conference on responsible research assessment—and co-authored by a team drawn from the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), Research on Research Institute (RoRI), CWTS-Leiden and National Research Foundation of South Africa,—the paper serves as a primer for the RRA agenda as it intensifies worldwide.