Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ramos, Ana
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Sarrico, Cláudia S.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/27482
Resumo: Research units in Portugal undergo a formal evaluation process based on peer review which is the basis for distributing funding from the national research council. This article analyzes the evaluation results and asks how good they are at predicting future research performance. Better research evaluations mean the institution receives more funding, so the key question is to what extent research evaluations are able to predict future performance as measured by bibliometric indicators. We use data from the peer evaluation of units in 2007–08, and analyze how well it is able to predict the results of a bibliometric study of the units’ Web of Science publications in the period 2007–10. We found that, in general, units that had better peer ratings, and thus more funding, as well as an increased capacity to attract extra funding, were not necessarily those that ended up producing more excellent research. The results provide an empirical contribution to the discussion regarding whether science can be measured and how, and reinforce the importance of evaluations where the use of quantitative data is defined and the differences between areas are accounted for. This analysis provides a snapshot of Portugal's recent scientific performance. Chemistry and physics are among the subfields with higher output and impact, which agrees with a traditional preferential funding of these areas. Institutions also excel in areas that may be assuming an increased relevance (Plant Sciences, Food Science and Technology, Neurosciences and other health-related subfields), which should be taken into account when implementing future science policies.
id RCAP_4714bea30c1135b402e1a80cb1846188
oai_identifier_str oai:www.repository.utl.pt:10400.5/27482
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugalresearch performanceevaluationfunding policiesbibliometricsResearch units in Portugal undergo a formal evaluation process based on peer review which is the basis for distributing funding from the national research council. This article analyzes the evaluation results and asks how good they are at predicting future research performance. Better research evaluations mean the institution receives more funding, so the key question is to what extent research evaluations are able to predict future performance as measured by bibliometric indicators. We use data from the peer evaluation of units in 2007–08, and analyze how well it is able to predict the results of a bibliometric study of the units’ Web of Science publications in the period 2007–10. We found that, in general, units that had better peer ratings, and thus more funding, as well as an increased capacity to attract extra funding, were not necessarily those that ended up producing more excellent research. The results provide an empirical contribution to the discussion regarding whether science can be measured and how, and reinforce the importance of evaluations where the use of quantitative data is defined and the differences between areas are accounted for. This analysis provides a snapshot of Portugal's recent scientific performance. Chemistry and physics are among the subfields with higher output and impact, which agrees with a traditional preferential funding of these areas. Institutions also excel in areas that may be assuming an increased relevance (Plant Sciences, Food Science and Technology, Neurosciences and other health-related subfields), which should be taken into account when implementing future science policies.Oxford AcademicRepositório da Universidade de LisboaRamos, AnaSarrico, Cláudia S.2023-03-21T11:41:30Z20162016-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/27482engRamos, Ana e Cláudia S. Sarrico (2016). Past performance does not guarantee future results : lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal. Research Evaluation, 25(1): 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv02310.1093/reseval/rvv023info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-04-02T01:34:16Zoai:www.repository.utl.pt:10400.5/27482Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T17:48:20.243995Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal
title Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal
spellingShingle Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal
Ramos, Ana
research performance
evaluation
funding policies
bibliometrics
title_short Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal
title_full Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal
title_fullStr Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal
title_full_unstemmed Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal
title_sort Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal
author Ramos, Ana
author_facet Ramos, Ana
Sarrico, Cláudia S.
author_role author
author2 Sarrico, Cláudia S.
author2_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ramos, Ana
Sarrico, Cláudia S.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv research performance
evaluation
funding policies
bibliometrics
topic research performance
evaluation
funding policies
bibliometrics
description Research units in Portugal undergo a formal evaluation process based on peer review which is the basis for distributing funding from the national research council. This article analyzes the evaluation results and asks how good they are at predicting future research performance. Better research evaluations mean the institution receives more funding, so the key question is to what extent research evaluations are able to predict future performance as measured by bibliometric indicators. We use data from the peer evaluation of units in 2007–08, and analyze how well it is able to predict the results of a bibliometric study of the units’ Web of Science publications in the period 2007–10. We found that, in general, units that had better peer ratings, and thus more funding, as well as an increased capacity to attract extra funding, were not necessarily those that ended up producing more excellent research. The results provide an empirical contribution to the discussion regarding whether science can be measured and how, and reinforce the importance of evaluations where the use of quantitative data is defined and the differences between areas are accounted for. This analysis provides a snapshot of Portugal's recent scientific performance. Chemistry and physics are among the subfields with higher output and impact, which agrees with a traditional preferential funding of these areas. Institutions also excel in areas that may be assuming an increased relevance (Plant Sciences, Food Science and Technology, Neurosciences and other health-related subfields), which should be taken into account when implementing future science policies.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z
2023-03-21T11:41:30Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/27482
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/27482
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Ramos, Ana e Cláudia S. Sarrico (2016). Past performance does not guarantee future results : lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal. Research Evaluation, 25(1): 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv023
10.1093/reseval/rvv023
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Oxford Academic
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Oxford Academic
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799131565960200192