Abstract
Research Evaluation Systems (RESs) can be divided into "pre-performance or post-performance evaluation" or "retrospective or prospective evaluation". The Retrospective Research Evaluation Systems (RRESs), also known as Performance-based Research Funding Systems (PRFSs), are complex national systems designed to evaluate universities and research centers and allocate public funds based on their outputs and outcomes. This study compares the RRESs of the UK and
Australia to gain a better understanding of the structure and components of these evaluation systems. A comparative study method was applied to look for similarities and differences between the RESs of selected countries. The two countries were chosen based on the criteria of transparency, access to credible documents, formality, comprehensiveness, flexibility, and management. Bereday’s four-step model consisting of description, interpretation, juxtaposition,
and comparison of RESs was utilized for the data analysis. The results showed that two evaluation systems emphasize the components of human resources, finance and infrastructure in evaluation. Quantitative and qualitative approaches prevail in all two systems. In terms of the evaluation unit,
the systems have almost the same structure, and the evaluation is done by specialized panels. The quality of research outputs is evaluated in two systems, and in the UK, the two elements of impact and research environment are also evaluated. In general, it can be said that the formation of national systems for research evaluation affects not only the quality of research, but also the
purposefulness of research, scientific and technical progress of the country, and people’s lives. The unique aspect of this study is the comparison of the input, process, output, and impact components of the RRESs of the UK and Australia. The results can be beneficiary for managing and policymaking for research assessment units on micro/macro levels.
Australia to gain a better understanding of the structure and components of these evaluation systems. A comparative study method was applied to look for similarities and differences between the RESs of selected countries. The two countries were chosen based on the criteria of transparency, access to credible documents, formality, comprehensiveness, flexibility, and management. Bereday’s four-step model consisting of description, interpretation, juxtaposition,
and comparison of RESs was utilized for the data analysis. The results showed that two evaluation systems emphasize the components of human resources, finance and infrastructure in evaluation. Quantitative and qualitative approaches prevail in all two systems. In terms of the evaluation unit,
the systems have almost the same structure, and the evaluation is done by specialized panels. The quality of research outputs is evaluated in two systems, and in the UK, the two elements of impact and research environment are also evaluated. In general, it can be said that the formation of national systems for research evaluation affects not only the quality of research, but also the
purposefulness of research, scientific and technical progress of the country, and people’s lives. The unique aspect of this study is the comparison of the input, process, output, and impact components of the RRESs of the UK and Australia. The results can be beneficiary for managing and policymaking for research assessment units on micro/macro levels.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | Journal of Scientometric Research |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 15 Jun 2025 |