As a rule, the duties of academic staff members include research, teaching and dissemination. In recent years, the requirements for university research have been increasing; some basic research grants are distributed according to the extent of scientific publishing, and research output has become a criterion for programme accreditation. In order to assess whether academic staff members are meeting the faculty's expectations for research performance, the faculty conducts annual evaluations of research performance. The faculty wishes to strengthen individual researchers’ publishing in high-impact publishing venues in the context of a strong collective research culture, which is why the annual evaluation focuses on the individual researcher’s publishing activity as well as on the overall publishing activity of the research groups.
The annual evaluation concerns only permanent academic staff members (associate professors, professors and professors with special responsibilities) and primarily deals with research performance registered as research publications in VBN.
The publishing requirements in the current model must be seen as a minimum standard.
EXPECTATIONS FOR SATISFACTORY COLLECTIVE RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
All research groups at SAMF are required to design and continuously follow up on their strategies. The strategies must contain the group's publishing plan, including descriptions of which publishing venues are considered most prestigious and strategically important for the group.
Collective research performance is evaluated according to the following procedure:
- The head of department informs the department’s research groups when the annual evaluation of the activities of the groups will be done (group performance review, GRUS), the process that will take place and the materials that must be provided.
- In connection with the GRUS, the research group in conjunction with the head of department, reviews previous years' publications in terms of the strategic objectives of the group. The head of department is responsible for evaluating whether the publishing level of the group is satisfactory and meets the objectives set in the previous GRUS.
- Based on the evaluation of the group's publishing level, the research group will discuss and define the group's publishing objectives in the coming year with the head of department.
- If a research group fails to meet the publishing objectives agreed on, an agreement is reached on how improvements can be made.
- The next GRUS and evaluation of research groups’ collective publishing level according to the present procedure takes into account previously applicable procedures and requirements for the faculty’s departments.
EXPECTATIONS FOR SATISFACTORY INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
For the individual academic staff member, the following expectation on research performance applies: At least one peer-reviewed scientific publication (article in a peer-reviewed journal, chapter in a peer-reviewed anthology, peer-reviewed monograph) annually, measured over a three-year period.
The concept of ‘peer reviewed’ is based on the current ‘Guidelines for registering research for the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator’.
In evaluating the research performance of the individual academic staff member, the performance of their other tasks related to research, teaching and dissemination are taken into account.
Individual research performance is evaluated according to the following procedure:
- The head of department informs all academic staff members on the procedure for evaluating satisfactory research performance, including the schedule and use of VBN data. The process is aligned as far as possible with the process for validating publications by the VBN editorial office.
- At the request of the head of department, the VBN editorial office prepares reports summarizing activities (cf. activity registration) and research publications for the past three years for each academic staff member.
- The reports are sent to the academic staff members who may then correct the information, as well as note specific conditions or activities not registered in the reports.
- Bases on the reports and the additional information, the head of department evaluates whether the research performance of each staff member has been satisfactory. If additional information or clarification of specific activities is needed, the head of department may invite the relevant staff member for a meeting.
- If the head of department considers the research performance of specific staff members to be unsatisfactory, the head of department and the staff member discuss how to rectify the situation within a defined period. The head of department then clarifies their expectations for the staff member in writing. The evaluation of the individual research performance of academic staff members is also part of the annual staff performance review (MUS).
The present model for the annual evaluation of research performance at the Faculty of Social Sciences takes effect 1 January 2019.