ReseaRch Quality assuRance foR the futuRe a ... - Lund University

foreword
Foreword
The initiative to perform this evaluation of all research at Lund University,
Research Quality Evaluation for the Future – RQ08, was indirectly
taken by the University Board by accepting the Lund University Strategic
Plan 2007–2010. Here is stated that the first research evaluation by
external panels shall be carried out during 2008. The aims of such an
evaluation are many-folded but can be generalized as an instrument
to strengthen the research quality of the university but also to identify
processes which may foster a development towards more strong research
environments.
In January 2007 the Vice-Chancellor, Prof Göran Bexell, asked me to
organize a research evaluation. During the spring 2007 different formats
of the evaluation were discussed. In May the Vice-Chancellor took the
formal decision to appoint me as a project manager and a Project Steering
Group (3 members + the project manager) was named. The work then
intensified. The decision to actually start the evaluation was made in
September when a project reference group was appointed. The format of
the evaluation was here also decided and a project office was established.
In October a web page was published including a time plan which,
during the running project, had to be slightly adjusted. The University
staff thus was informed about the coming evaluation and its format
during the autumn 2007. During the whole process, both the Project
Steering Group and the Reference Group have been very important for
policy discussions as well as more detailed modelling of the evaluation
procedure.
The adopted general format was based on a peer review procedure.
Distinguished international scholars were invited to evaluate research
performance and future plans based on self-evaluations of the departments
as well as data collected from university common databases. Full
lists of publications should be available for the evaluators from the Lund
University Publications data base, a service that unfortunately was not
fully functional during the process. The departments were allocated
under 17 different groups and a panel of experts was appointed to each
group of departments.
Allocation of the departments under different panels (see Annex 3) as
well as the assignment of the evaluators, the panellists, (see Annex 2), was
5