Assessment and support of emerging research groups

TL;DR

This paper critiques existing research assessment models for emerging groups, proposing an evaluative framework that emphasizes communication and preconditions over traditional metrics, especially supporting early career scientists.

Contribution

It introduces an alternative assessment approach based on an explicit evaluative framework and proposes new funding formulas for emerging research groups.

Findings

Classical bibliometric indicators have limitations for emerging groups.

Metrics should be used to set minimum standards, not sole performance measures.

Proposed funding formulas aim to better support early career scientists.

Abstract

The starting point of this paper is a desktop research assessment model that does not take properly into account the complexities of research assessment, but rather bases itself on a series of highly simplifying, questionable assumptions related to the availability, validity and evaluative significance of research performance indicators, and to funding policy criteria. The paper presents a critique of this model, and proposes alternative assessment approaches, based on an explicit evaluative framework, focusing on preconditions to performance or communication effectiveness rather than on performance itself, combining metrics and expert knowledge, and using metrics primarily to set minimum standards. Giving special attention to early career scientists in emerging research groups, the paper discusses the limits of classical bibliometric indicators and altmetrics. It proposes alternative funding formula of research institutions aimed to support emerging research groups.