The Corona-Eye: Exploring the risks of COVID-19 on fair assessments of impact for REF 2021

IF 2.9 4区管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Research Evaluation Pub Date : 2021-09-17 DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvab033

G. Derrick, J. Bayley

{"title":"The Corona-Eye: Exploring the risks of COVID-19 on fair assessments of impact for REF 2021","authors":"G. Derrick, J. Bayley","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvab033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper assesses the risk of two COVID-19 related changes necessary for the expert-review of the REF2021’s Impact criterion: the move from F2F to virtual deliberation; and the changing research landscape caused by the COVID-19 crisis requiring an extension of deadlines, and accommodation of COVID-19 related mitigation. Peer review in its basic form requires expert debate, where dissenting opinions and non-verbal cues are absorbed into a groups deliberative practice and therefore inform outcomes. With a move to deliberations in virtual settings, the most likely current outcome for REF2021 evaluations, the extent that negotiation dynamics necessary in F2F evaluations are diminished and how this limits panelists’ ability to sensitively assess COVID-19 mitigation statements is questioned. This article explores the nature of, and associated capabilities to undertake, complex decision making in virtual settings around the Impact criterion as well the consequences of COVID-19 on normal Impact trajectories. It examines the risks these changes present for evaluation of the Impact criterion and provides recommendations to offset these risks to enhance discussion and safeguard the legitimacy of evaluation outcomes. This paper is also relevant for evaluation processes of academic criteria that require both a shift to virtual, and/or guidance of how to sensitively assess the effect of COVID-19 on narratives of individual, group or organisational performance.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab033","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This paper assesses the risk of two COVID-19 related changes necessary for the expert-review of the REF2021’s Impact criterion: the move from F2F to virtual deliberation; and the changing research landscape caused by the COVID-19 crisis requiring an extension of deadlines, and accommodation of COVID-19 related mitigation. Peer review in its basic form requires expert debate, where dissenting opinions and non-verbal cues are absorbed into a groups deliberative practice and therefore inform outcomes. With a move to deliberations in virtual settings, the most likely current outcome for REF2021 evaluations, the extent that negotiation dynamics necessary in F2F evaluations are diminished and how this limits panelists’ ability to sensitively assess COVID-19 mitigation statements is questioned. This article explores the nature of, and associated capabilities to undertake, complex decision making in virtual settings around the Impact criterion as well the consequences of COVID-19 on normal Impact trajectories. It examines the risks these changes present for evaluation of the Impact criterion and provides recommendations to offset these risks to enhance discussion and safeguard the legitimacy of evaluation outcomes. This paper is also relevant for evaluation processes of academic criteria that require both a shift to virtual, and/or guidance of how to sensitively assess the effect of COVID-19 on narratives of individual, group or organisational performance.

查看原文本刊更多论文

冠状病毒之眼:探讨2019冠状病毒病风险对REF 2021影响的公平评估

摘要:本文评估了专家评审REF2021影响标准所需的两项与COVID-19相关的变化的风险:从F2F转向虚拟审议;COVID-19危机导致的研究格局变化需要延长最后期限，并适应与COVID-19相关的缓解工作。同行评议的基本形式需要专家辩论，不同意见和非语言线索被吸收到小组审议实践中，从而为结果提供信息。随着在虚拟环境中进行审议，REF2021评估最有可能的当前结果、F2F评估中必要的谈判动态在多大程度上被削弱，以及这如何限制了小组成员敏感评估COVID-19缓解声明的能力，都受到了质疑。本文探讨了围绕影响标准在虚拟环境中进行复杂决策的性质和相关能力，以及COVID-19对正常影响轨迹的影响。它检查了这些变化为影响标准的评估带来的风险，并提供了抵消这些风险的建议，以加强讨论并维护评估结果的合法性。本文还与学术标准的评估过程相关，这些标准既需要转向虚拟，也需要指导如何敏感地评估COVID-19对个人、团体或组织绩效叙述的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Research Evaluation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

18.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Research Evaluation is a peer-reviewed, international journal. It ranges from the individual research project up to inter-country comparisons of research performance. Research projects, researchers, research centres, and the types of research output are all relevant. It includes public and private sectors, natural and social sciences. The term "evaluation" applies to all stages from priorities and proposals, through the monitoring of on-going projects and programmes, to the use of the results of research.