How UOW uses research metrics responsibly
UOWs Principles on the Responsible use of Research Metrics (“Principles”) provide guidance on the appropriate use of quantitative research metrics to evaluate research activity. The Principles are crafted to reflect and promote existing best practices, serving as a roadmap for future endeavours across all disciplines and activity indicators at UOW.
UOW values the diverse community of excellent researchers, who contribute to our strategic goal to ‘create knowledge for a better world’. It is therefore critical that information used to assess research activity is used appropriately and transparently.
Research metrics can provide useful evidence to help inform decision-making, in combination with qualitative and expert assessment. They are used to inform research reporting, to support grant and promotion applications.
Research metrics data used, must be used in compliance with all UOW Policies including, but not limited to:
- Research Data Management Policy
- Privacy Policy
- Anti-Racism and Cultural Safety Policy
- and Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Policy.
Discretion should be applied when reporting, circulating, distributing, or sharing metrics aggregated by group, particularly where the group consists of less than ten (10) individuals, to avoid inadvertent identification of individuals or disadvantage.
In accordance with recommendations from the Metric Tide (2015), metrics used to assess research activity at UOW must be considered in terms of their:
- robustness (using the best available data in terms of accuracy and scope);
- humility (recognising that quantitative evaluation can complement, but does not replace, expert assessment);
- transparency (keeping the collection of data and its analysis open to scrutiny);
- diversity (reflecting a multitude of research and researcher career paths); and
- reflexivity (recognising and anticipating the systemic and potential effects of indicators and updating them in response).
Research metrics have their limitations and can be incorrectly reported or misinterpreted, particularly where assumptions of data validity are made. Where appropriate, quantitative indicators can be used to inform judgements and challenge preconceptions, but not to replace expert judgement.