Introduction

A revolutionary study emerging from the University of Glasgow's Adam Smith Business School is set to transform the landscape of academic research evaluation. Researchers reveal findings that challenge the conventional belief that academic judges are the best arbiters of research quality, urging a shift towards more responsible and diverse assessment methodologies.

Key Findings

This impressive research, recently published in the Research Policy journal, utilizes data from the UK's 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF), analyzing how metrics and expert judgment interact in evaluating research outputs. The study delved into research from 108 institutions, scrutinizing a staggering 13,973 publications in business and management—making it one of the widest-ranging evaluations in the field.

Concerns Regarding Journal Influence

In a landmark finding, the research reveals a significant connection between journal standings and expert evaluations, particularly with high-ranking journals. This raises concerns as it suggests the prestige associated with certain journals may unduly influence expert reviews, countering claims of objective assessment practices. Alarmingly, even with the broad support for the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which promotes responsible research evaluation methods, the expected change in assessment practices remains elusive.

Institutional Practices vs. DORA Principles

Many academic institutions have publicly committed to DORA principles; however, discrepancies emerge in practice, as their REF submissions still rely heavily on traditional metrics like journal rankings. This phenomenon, dubbed "institutional peacocking," illustrates a superficial engagement with DORA's ideals, signaling an urgent need for substantive changes in academia.

Expert Commentary

Professor Anna Morgan Thomas, the study’s lead author, articulated the current challenges faced by higher education: "This research arrives at a crucial juncture, where funding uncertainty and mounting pressures are leading to unsustainable workloads for academics. Young researchers are especially at risk, as they must navigate a system that favors those more familiar with its complexities." Thomas emphasizes the critical gap in knowledge regarding responsible research assessment and aims to inspire a shift in thinking about evaluation practices through empirical insights and calls to action.

Co-author and Professor of Public Management, Adina Dudau, echoes this sentiment by highlighting the collective responsibility of academics to cultivate an inclusive research environment: "Our goal is to foster impactful research that benefits society."

Early career researcher Dr. Beth Cloughton lamented that the current assessment framework adversely affects less experienced scholars: "Many early career academics are hindered by their modest self-assessments, which don’t match the realities of their potential contributions, nor do they present a promising career trajectory."

Recommendations for Change

Moving forward, the study presents vital recommendations for policy-makers and academic institutions. It advocates for a thorough reassessment of evaluation practices to ensure alignment with the professed values of accountability and integrity in research. Emphasizing the necessity of genuine commitment to responsible assessment beyond lip service, the authors call for a blend of qualitative and quantitative evaluation techniques that reflect true research impact.

Conclusion

As this study unfolds its implications, it is likely to ignite a much-needed dialogue about the future of research assessment practices worldwide, challenging institutions to prioritize genuine progress over mere policy adherence.