Evaluation of individual research units - Norges forskningsråd

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 Evaluation of biology, medicine and health research in Norway (2011) elsewhere. If this situation continues, it may result in a deterioration of the research base in Norway. Technicians The self-evaluations and conversations with institutions and departments suggested that technical support is quite limited within many of those organisations. The drivers of this situation were not clear. We speculated that perhaps when directors or heads of department have freedom to allocate funds, they tend to support faculty, research staff, or administrators rather than technicians. Regardless of the cause, it seemed likely to us that research output per scientist would increase, considerably in some cases, if additional technical support were available. This situation may warrant a general assessment by the Research Council. Diversification of measures of success Many institutions differentiated between basic and applied research. Research traditionally has been classified along a gradient or axis from basic to applied, with different motivations driving each end of the gradient. In this schema, basic research produces new knowledge (i.e. it establishes fundamental principles) in a scientific or technological discipline. It is often theoretical and intended to increase understanding of certain phenomena or behaviour. This research may or may not be driven by a practical application to management or social priorities. According to the same schema, applied research is research that aims to address practical, often widespread challenges and develop or implement innovative technologies; it is reliant on established basic principles. Research activities also may be mapped in two dimensions, according to the degree to which research is pursued to satisfy scientific curiosity versus a practical application, and the degree to which the research is intended to advance fundamental scientific knowledge. No matter the initial motivation, multiple phases ultimately are involved in the development and use of knowledge from initial concept to implementation. Louis Pasteur emphasized that there does not exist a category of science which one can name applied science. Instead, there is science and there are applications of science. Whether research is driven by curiosity or practical needs for information does not affect the quality of the work. A number of institutions further implied that research motivated by practical needs is less amenable to high-quality publication than curiosity-driven research. We disagree with this suggestion. Instead, rigorous science generally is publishable in highly respected journals regardless of motivation. Nevertheless, we recognize that scopes of work and budgets for projects supported by contracts may not encompass preparation of manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed journals. The quality of research does not depend on where – or if – the work is published. Reliable, objective information, analyses, and inferences have the potential to inform decision-making whether they be communicated in a journal, a report, or verbally. Accordingly, our evaluations of research quality encompass interaction with national and international bodies that render decisions or pass legislation (see following section). Additionally, several institutions identified concerns over the current national publication rankings that are organized and run by the Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions, noting that for some disciplines journals that would be considered high
Evaluation of biology, medicine and health research in Norway (2011) impact in a given discipline were ranked lower in the Norwegian system overall. It may be helpful to re-evaluate the current journal impact factors in Norway. We encourage institutions and the Research Council to formalise recognition of outreach or collaboration with decision-makers as measures of success equal to publication in journals with high impact factors. Nevertheless, we encourage institutions to include publication within contract agreements whenever feasible. Because publication often confers greater credibility to a given research project, publication may be in the best interests of the sponsor. Numerous examples exist of successful publication despite the need or desire to withhold proprietary information from the public. 11
Page 1: Public Health and Health-related Re
Page 4 and 5: © The Research Council of Norway 2
Page 6 and 7: 2 Evaluation of biology, medicine a
Page 10 and 11: Statement from the Panel To the Res
Page 16 and 17: 12 Evaluation of biology, medicine
Page 24 and 25: Evaluation of individual research u
Page 44 and 45: University of Nordland Faculty of B
Page 48 and 49: Seafood Quality Grading of scientif
Page 62 and 63: Fish Biology & Population Genetics
Page 64 and 65:
Marine Plankton Grading of scientif
Page 66 and 67:
62 Evaluation of biology, medicine
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Deep Sea Species Grading of scienti
Page 74 and 75:
Observation Methodology Grading of
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Section of Plant Pathology Grading
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Norwegian Polar Institute 90 Evalua
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
SNP Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
2. Organization and methods 100 Eva
Page 106 and 107:
102 o Gender and age balance in aca
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Dialog og tilbakemelding 106 Evalua
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Vedlegg 2 Avgrensning og organiseri
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
124 2. Fungal systematics Evaluatio
show all

Evaluation of individual research units - Norges forskningsråd

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?