Gaps and assumptions in our research assessment approach: KAUST experience
1. Gaps and Assumptions
in our research assessment approach
KAUST Experience
Thibaut
LERY,
Director,
Research
Evaluation
T.LERY@KAUST.EDU.SA
May
18,
2015
kaust.edu.saKing Abdullah University of Science andTechnology
2. Vision of a 5 year old University
KAUST
aspires
to
be
a
destination
for
scienti4ic
and
technological
education
and
research.
By
inspiring
discoveries
to
address
global
challenges,
we
strive
to
serve
as
a
beacon
of
knowledge
that
bridges
people
and
cultures
for
the
betterment
of
humanity.
2
Mission of the Office of Research Evaluation
1. Conduct
evaluation
and
foresight
to
foster
data
and
context
driven
decision-‐making
within
the
Of4ice
of
the
Vice
President
for
Research,
2. Collect,
curate,
analyze
and
present
research
related
data,
3. Promote
a
culture
of
assessment,
strategic
planning
and
research
integrity
at
KAUST.
5/11/15
Of4ice
of
Research
Evaluation
–
VPR
Of4ice
–
Dr.
Thibaut
LERY
–
T.
LERY@KAUST.EDU.SA
3. KAUST by the NUMBERS in 2015
840
Students
401
Post
Docs
315
Research
scien8sts
137
Faculty
6065
Community
members
2124
Employees
1345
School
children
109
Community
84
Workforce
Na8onali8es
5. Source of information
for the Office
Researchers
+
Students
Infrastructures
CORE
LABS
Funds
Research
Data
+
Strategy
Publica<ons
+
Reports
Patents
Technology
Transfer
Evalua8on
Internal
funding
Agency
+
External
grant
management
Office
Panels of
expertsReports
Senior
Management
SAP
5/11/15
Of4ice
of
Research
Evaluation
–
VPR
Of4ice
–
Dr.
Thibaut
LERY
–
T.
LERY@KAUST.EDU.SA
5
Data
Warehouse
Converis + Gifts + BI
Library
Repository
6. Research Evaluation Process
The
Of4ice
agrees
with
the
various
stakeholders
about
the
format,
criteria
and
indicators
of
the
evaluation
that
occurs
every
second
year.
In
preparation
for
the
site
visit,
we
provide:
• Fact
sheets
with
information
about
the
research
groups
(by
the
Of4ice).
• Self-‐evaluations
(by
the
research
groups).
• Bibliometrics
and
output
analysis
(by
the
Of4ice)
• Templates
for
the
hearings
conducted
between
an
external
Committee
and
the
research
groups.
Following
the
recommendations
of
the
4inal
report
and
the
discussions
with
the
Research
groups,
the
University
draws
new
strategic
plans.
The Research Council of Norway
7. Recipes for Research Evaluation
• Methodologies
and
data
collection
should
be
open,
transparent
and
explained
upfront
(training)
• Indicators
and
criteria
should
be
agreed
with
all
the
stakeholders
(no
hidden
agenda)
• Weak
signals
and
informal
discussions
are
key
• Quantitative
evaluation
must
support
Qualitative
expert
assessment
• Evaluation
should
lead
to
strategy
building
• Strategies
should
follow
stable
and
ef4icient
policies
and
practices
5/11/15
Of4ice
of
Research
Evaluation
–
VPR
Of4ice
–
Dr.
Thibaut
LERY
–
T.
LERY@KAUST.EDU.SA
7
8. Close collaboration with the Library
The
Of4ice
of
Research
evaluation
works
closely
with
the
Library
to
train
and
educate
researchers
and
students
about
bibliometrics
and
their
usage.
Key
topics:
• Value
of
using
citation
databases
in
the
literature
search
• Understanding
citation
metrics
and
tools
(h-‐Index,
FWCI,
Scopus,
WoS,
Scival,
Incites,
Altmetrics,
etc.)
• Role
of
publications
in
effecting
institutional
rankings
• Understanding
researcher
pro4iling
(ORCID,
Google
Scholar
etc.)
• Bene4its
of
open
access
and
best
practices
of
the
institutional
repository
• Research
integrity,
plagiarism,
and
the
use
of
similarity
checking
tools
The Research Council of Norway
9. Scival.:
May
2014
4.8
2.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
3.0
29
33
35
33
38
42
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
%
of
Publica8ons
in
top
1%
journals
%
of
Publica8ons
in
top
10%
journals
%
• On
average,
1/3
of
KAUST
publica<ons
are
in
the
top
10%
journals
• 21
of
the
1277
publica<ons
in
2013
were
in
the
top
1%
journals
average
9
5/11/15
Of4ice
of
Research
Evaluation
–
VPR
Of4ice
–
Dr.
Thibaut
LERY
–
T.
LERY@KAUST.EDU.SA
10. Benchmarking against other Universities
Based on
Scopus data
between
2011 and 2013
(excluding
self-citations)
CALTECH'
Carnegie'Mellon'
EPFL'
ETH'Zurich'
GeorgiaTech'
Harvard'
HKUST'
Istanbul'Univ.'
King'Abdulaziz'
KFUPM'
KAIST'
Lehigh'Univ.'
MIT'
NU'Singapore'
Princeton'
Shanghai'J.'Univ.'
Texas'A&M'
Berkeley'
Cambridge'
Copenhagen'
Univ.'of'Tokyo'
0'
1'
2'
3'
4'
5'
6'
7'
8'
9'
10'
0' 10' 20' 30' 40'
CitaWons'per'publicaWons'
PublicaWons'in'Top'10'Journal'PercenWles'(%)'
11. Benchmarking against other Universities
Based on
Scopus data
between
2011 and 2013
(excluding
self-citations)
CALTECH'
Carnegie'Mellon'
EPFL'
ETH'Zurich'
GeorgiaTech'
Harvard'
HKUST'
Istanbul'Univ.'
King'Abdulaziz'
KAUST'
KFUPM'
KAIST'
Lehigh'Univ.'
MIT'
NU'Singapore'
Princeton'
Shanghai'J.'Univ.'
Texas'A&M'
Berkeley'
Cambridge'
Copenhagen'
Univ.'of'Tokyo'
0'
1'
2'
3'
4'
5'
6'
7'
8'
9'
10'
0' 10' 20' 30' 40'
CitaWons'per'publicaWons'
PublicaWons'in'Top'10'Journal'PercenWles'(%)'
12. Gaps and assumptions in Evaluations
12
Selection
• Dif4icult
career
tracking
• Af4iliation
issues
• Unique
ID
for
Universities
and
research
facilities
Data
• Non-‐standard
format
• Missing
data
• Tools
and
expertise
• Connected
tools
and
DB
Evaluation
• Ex-‐ante
• Ex-‐post
• Stakeholder
contribution
• Follow-‐up
after
evaluation
Foresight
• Hidden
agenda
• No
clear
guidance
• Time
constraints
• Funding
issues
Experts
• Availability
• Personalities
• No
usage
of
social
networks
Selection
• Full
publication
list
• Identi4ied
science
area
• Researcher/
Facilities/
management
Data
• Standard
data
collection,
curation,
and
analysis
• Research
data
management
• Access
to
data
Evaluation
• Self-‐evaluation
• Expert
panels
• Dialogue
with
all
the
stakeholders
• Budget
consequences
Foresight
• Grand
challenges
• Strategies
in
place
• Com.
Plans
• Stakeholder
engagement
Experts
• Access
to
adequate
experts
• Bibliometrics
are
good
indicators
ASSUMPTIONSGAPS
5/11/15
Of4ice
of
Research
Evaluation
–
VPR
Of4ice
–
Dr.
Thibaut
LERY
–
T.
LERY@KAUST.EDU.SA