ForewordPreamble

Principles

Guideline 1: Commitment to the general principlesGuideline 2: Professional ethicsGuideline 3: Organisational responsibility of heads of research institutionsGuideline 4: Responsibility of the heads of research work unitsGuideline 5: Dimensions of performance and assessment criteriaGuideline 6: Ombudspersons

Research Process

Guideline 7: Cross-phase quality assuranceGuideline 8: Stakeholders, responsibilities and rolesGuideline 9: Research design

 

Guideline 10: Legal and ethical frameworks, usage rightsGuideline 11: Methods and standardsGuideline 12: DocumentationGuideline 13: Providing public access to research resultsGuideline 14: AuthorshipGuideline 15: Publication mediumGuideline 16: Confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussionsGuideline 17: Archiving

Non-Compliance with Good Research Practice, Procedures

Guideline 18: Complainants and respondentsGuideline 19: Procedures in cases of alleged research misconductImplementation of the Guidelines
ForewordPreamblePrinzipienGuideline 1: Commitment to the general principlesGuideline 2: Professional ethicsGuideline 3: Organisational responsibility of heads of research institutionsGuideline 4: Responsibility of the heads of research work unitsGuideline 5: Dimensions of performance and assessment criteriaGuideline 6: OmbudspersonsForschungsprozessGuideline 7: Cross-phase quality assuranceGuideline 8: Stakeholders, responsibilities and rolesGuideline 9: Research designGuideline 10: Legal and ethical frameworks, usage rightsGuideline 11: Methods and standardsGuideline 12: DocumentationGuideline 13: Providing public access to research resultsGuideline 14: AuthorshipGuideline 15: Publication mediumGuideline 16: Confidentiality and neutrality of review processes and discussionsGuideline 17: ArchivingNichtbeachtung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis, VerfahrenGuideline 18: Complainants and respondentsGuideline 19: Procedures in cases of alleged research misconductImplementation of the Guidelines
Keyword Index
The Code of Conduct
| Print

Comment on:

The following comment refers to this/these guideline(s)

Guideline 5

Dimensions of performance and assessment criteria

To assess the performance of researchers, a multidimensional approach is called for; in addition to academic and scientific achievements, other aspects may be taken into consideration. Performance is assessed primarily on the basis of qualitative measures, while quantitative indicators may be incorporated into the overall assessment only with appropriate differentiation and reflection. Where provided voluntarily, individual circumstances stated in curricula vitae – as well as the categories specified in the German General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) – are taken into account when forming a judgement.

Explanations:

High-quality research is oriented towards criteria specific to individual disciplines. In addition to the generation of and critical reflection on findings, other aspects of performance are taken into consideration in the evaluation process. Examples include involvement in teaching, academic self-governance, public relations, and knowledge and technology transfer; contributions to the general good of society may also be recognised. An individual’s approach to research, such as an openness to new findings and a willingness to take risks, is also considered. Appropriate allowance is made for periods of absence due to personal, family or health reasons or for prolonged training or qualification phases resulting from such periods, and for alternative career paths or similar circumstances.

Further links to performance dimensions and evaluation criteria

Disclaimer: The selection of links provided here does not claim to be exhaustive. They are examples. The editors welcome suggestions for the inclusion of further examples.

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment formulates principles for good practice in the assessment of research performance. According to this declaration, the diversity of research results and findings should be adequately taken into account in evaluation; at the same time, greater priority should be attached to the actual content of published research than to the relevant indicators and metrics (e.g. impact factor).
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

Implicit bias in assessment and decision-making processes

Canada Research Chairs – Trainingsmodule zu unconscious bias3-minute film by the Royal Society on “Understanding unconscious bias”8-minute film by the ERC on “Recruitment Bias in Research Institutes”Eagly & Mladinic (1994): Are People Prejudiced Against Women? Some Answers from Research on Attitudes, Gender Stereotypes, and Judgments of Competence, in: European Review of Social Psychology, 5 (1).

Diversity in the DFG context

Diversity in the Research System

Recommendations for supporting researchers in early career phases / Creating better framework conditions for attractive research careers

Principles of Effective Career Support in Academia

DMV statement on the use of bibliometric data in mathematics

DMV position paper on the use of bibliometric data (available in German only)

Example from the field of chemistry of an electronic laboratory journal with direct link to a repository for research data

Chemotion: Electronic Laboratory Notebook & Repository for Research Data

The comment belongs to the following categories:

GL5 (Link list)

Keywords:

authorshipperformance assessment

|