Each research evaluation at Ghent University adheres to eight principles, which together ensure that research can be evaluated in a responsible and high-quality manner.

More on Responsible research assessment

1. The evaluation is necessary

V  It is necessary, useful and meaningful for Ghent University to organize this evaluation at this moment

X  The evaluation is not organized out of habit or because other organizations are conducting similar evaluations

2. The evaluation has a clear purpose

V  The objective of the evaluation is explicitly defined before the start of the evaluation

X  The evaluation is not an end in itself

X  The purpose of the evaluation is not (merely) to encourage (or discourage) certain research behaviors that could be better incentivized (or discouraged) through other means.

3. The evaluation methods, criteria and indicators are consistend with the objective of the evaluation

V  Each method, criterion and indicator (quantitative and qualitative) used contributes to the objective of the evaluation, and thus to the quality and impact of the evaluation

V  All methods, criteria and indicators together ensure that the objective of the evaluation is achieved

X  No methods, criteria or indicators are used that are unnecessary or irrelevant for the evaluation 

X  No methods, criteria or indicators are used simply because other institutions do the same, out of habit, or because the methods, criteria or indicators are easy to use or find

4. Only high-quality evaluation methods, criteria and indicators are used

V  Each method, criterion and (quantitative and qualitative) indicator used is sufficiently robust and, to the extent possible, evidence-based

V  The methods, criteria and indicators used are as resistant as possible to gaming, and goal displacement is avoided as much as possible

V  The methods, criteria and indicators used are transparent, allowing the results of an evaluation to be checked and verified (also by those being evaluated)

X  No (new) methods, criteria or indicators are used unless it has been sufficiently demonstrated that they provide the necessary quality guarantees

5. The evaluation takes into account the complexity of the research and the diversity among researchers

V  The evaluation takes into account the meaning(s) attributed to ‘quality’ and ‘impact’ in the context of the research and the researcher(s) being evaluated

V  The evaluation considers differences between disciplines (e.g., in terms of publication culture, citation behavior)

V  The evaluation considers differences in career paths and stages

V  Consistent with the level of aggregation of the evaluation, various evaluation methods, criteria and indicators are combined to make the diversity of research visible

X  Research and researchers are not reduced to a single (qualitative or quantitative) indicator

X  The evaluation criteria, methods and indicators used do not result in certain disciplines, groups of researchers, etc. being (unintentionally) disadvantaged

X  Bias and (unintended) side effects of the chosen evaluation criteria, methods and indicators are corrected (normalized) if possible

6. The evaluation is feasible

V  The objective of the evaluation, chosen evaluation criteria, methods and indicators and the required allocation of resources and personnel are proportionate to the importance and scope of the evaluation

V  Sufficient expertise is available to qualitatively apply the chosen evaluation criteria, methods and indicators in the evaluation

V  Wherever possible, the evaluation uses information that is already available (e.g., institutional repositories and CRIS systems)

X No information is gathered (let alone requested from the individuals or research units being evaluated) that will not be used for the evaluation

7. The evaluation is conducted by experts

V  Researchers and experts with the necessary knowledge in research evaluation are involved in designing the evaluation

V  The evaluation is carried out by subject matter experts capable of adequately assessing the quality and impact of the research (and any other aspects); this especially applies to peer reviewers

V  The evaluators have sufficient knowledge of the evaluation criteria, methods and indicators used

V  The evaluation committee is balanced in terms of scientific discipline, experience, expertise, gender, etc.

V  External experts are involved in the evaluation when relevant (e.g., researchers working in other countries, representatives of the broad societal field)

V  The evaluators act in complete independence and avoid any conflicts of interest

V  The evaluators take full responsibility for the evaluation they conduct

V  The evaluators commit to implementing the principles from Ghent University’s vision on evaluating research in practice

8. The evaluation is conducted with openness and transparency

V  Wherever possible, the evaluation is designed in consultation with the individuals or research units that will be evaluated

V  The evaluation methods, criteria and indicators are defined in advance and communicated to all those involved

V  The individuals or research units being evaluated and the evaluators have full access to the information extracted from databases etc. for use in the evaluation; they can check and verify this information

V  Wherever possible, the persons or research units being evaluated are given the opportunity for rebuttal

V  The individuals or research units receive feedback – at least after and, if appropriate, also during the evaluation process

X  No additional methods, criteria or indicators are introduced during the evaluation process

X  Openness and transparency do not imply that the confidentiality of the evaluation process and of the files may be violated