Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Guidance on Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses of Quantitative Metrics in Research Assessment

Authors: Unitatea Executiva Pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior a Cercetarii Dezvoltarii si Inovarii; Spanache, Ioana; Trif, Ioana;

Guidance on Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses of Quantitative Metrics in Research Assessment

Abstract

This guide provides practical guidance on the responsible, appropriate, and inappropriate uses of quantitative metrics in research assessment, with a particular focus on evaluation of research project proposals, including the assessment of: the scientific quality of the proposal; the feasibility and credibility of the work plan; the prior experience, expertise, and relevant contributions of the applicants and team members, where these are part of the evaluation criteria. The guide does not aim to eliminate the use of quantitative information. Instead, it clarifies how metrics may be used responsibly, when they are misleading, and how they should be interpreted alongside expert judgement. Who is this guide for? External evaluators and reviewers Panel members, including rapporteurs and panel chairs Staff of research funding and performing organisations Applicants and their research teams, to improve transparency and mutual understanding The guide is relevant across disciplines and funding instruments, and is intended to support fairness, consistency, and quality of expert evaluation across the RDI ecosystem. This document was developed by UEFISCDI within the project ARIA – Advancing Responsible and Inclusive Assessment at UEFISCDI. The project is funded under the Horizon Europe programme through the CoARA Boost project Cascade Funding Call – Second Round. The ARIA project supports the advancement of responsible and inclusive research assessment practices, in alignment with the principles of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. DisclaimerThis document reflects the views of the authors and contributors involved in its preparation and does not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the European Commission or other affiliated organisations.

Keywords

CoARA, research assessment

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green