W 2026 r. wraz z konsorcjum kolegów z innych krajów Europy, otrzymałam grant Komisji Europejskiej w ramach programu Horyzont Europa. Nazwa projektu to: REALISE: Responsible Evaluation and Assessment Leading to Inclusive Scholarly Excellence (REALISE: Odpowiedzialna ewaluacja i ocena prowadząca do inkluzywnej doskonałości naukowej).
Celem projektu jest opracowanie podstawy badawczej dla reformy systemu nauki w Europe. Chcemy połączyć istniejące źródła wiedzy o trendach w zarządzaniu nauką, a szczególnie jej ewaluacji szczególnie. Przewodnim hasłem badań jest Responsible Research Assessment. Celem jest stworzenie przejrzystego i czytelnego źródła informacji dla decydentów.
Grant będzie realizowany w latach 2026-2029.
Jednostki uczestniczące w projekcie :
1 KNOW CENTER RESEARCH GMBH Austria (Koordynator)
2 UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN Holandia Partner
3 STICHTING RADBOUD UNIVERSITEIT Holandia Partner
4 THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH UK Partner
5 AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIO Hiszpania Partner
6 UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA Portugalia Partner
7 TIETEELLISTEN SEURAIN VALTUUSKUNNASTA Finlandia Partner
8 UNIWERSYTET SWPS Polska Partner
9 PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
Szczegółowy opis:
REALISE: Odpowiedzialna ewaluacja i ocena prowadząca do inkluzywnej doskonałości naukowej
Potrzeba reformy praktyk oceny badań naukowych jest powszechnie uznawana w Europie i na świecie. Jednak pomimo wpływowych inicjatyw, takich jak DORA i CoARA, wdrażanie reformy oceny badań naukowych przebiega powoli. Organizacje badawcze, decydenci i orędownicy reform pracują nad wdrażaniem reform oceny akademickiej, dysponując jedynie bardzo ograniczoną liczbą dowodów naukowych, które mogłyby ukierunkować ich działania.
REALISE będzie realizować ambitny program badawczy skoncentrowany na opracowaniu systematycznej bazy dowodowej dla reformy oceny badań naukowych, wykorzystując silne powiązania z kluczowymi inicjatywami (DORA i CoARA). Współtworząc projekt z szerokim gronem interesariuszy, stworzymy bazę wiedzy, która będzie syntetyzować istniejące dowody dotyczące reformy ewaluacji i zidentyfikuje luki w dowodach. Zbadamy, jak różne narzędzia i metody oceny mogą być najlepiej wykorzystane do poprawy oceny badań naukowych. Zbadamy także nowe podejścia do reformy oceny i zmiany kultury instytucjonalnej.
Cele projeku:
(1) stworzymy platformę internetową, która syntetyzuje bazę dowodową dotyczącą reformy oceny badań,
(2) dostarczymy nowe dowody dotyczące skuteczności i wpływu różnych rodzajów narzędzi i metod oceny badań,
(3) stworzymy praktyczne, sprawdzone ramy dla kierowania wdrażaniem odpowiedzialnej oceny badań w instytucjach i systemach na różnych etapach gotowości do reformy oraz
(4) przedstawimy rekomendacje dotyczące skutecznego wdrażania reformy oceny badań, dostosowane do lokalnego kontekstu organizacji badawczych.
Nasze prace będą stanowić źródło informacji dla inicjatyw na rzecz reformy oceny podejmowanych przez organizacje prowadzące i finansujące badania. Wesprą one również działania akcji takich jak DORA i CoARA, mających na celu promowanie reformy oceny badań. W ten sposób REALISE wniesie istotny wkład we wzmocnienie europejskiego systemu badań, zwiększenie zwrotu z inwestycji w badania i stworzenie atrakcyjniejszych możliwości kariery dla naukowców.
Szczegółowe informacje o konkursie
Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-06
(Enhancing the European R&I system)
Topic: HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-06-ERA-03
Type of Action: HORIZON-RIA
(HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions)).
Zadania SWPS w ramach Projektu:
Badacze z SWPS są zaangażowani w realizację zadań w „paczkach” (work packages) nr 4 i 5. SWPS kieruje zadaniem nr 4.3. Poniżej opisy po angielsku.
Work package 4
Objectives
This work package will create new evidence on the efficacy and impact of different types of research assessment tools and methods, including tools and methods used in the assessment of research organisations, research projects, and individual researchers. We will engage stakeholders in refining the research questions and study designs.
The proposed research will examine the impact of 1) using Journal Impact Factors and national journal registers in assessments, 2) strategies for integrating quantitative vs. qualitative information when assessing the societal impact of research at the institutional and national level, 3) using reflexivity and transparency measures to mitigate bias in peer review, and 4) programs designed to reward graduate students for implementing reproducible, reusable and open research practices in their thesis research. Diversity and inclusion across genders and underrepresented groups and infrastructures and tools needed to base research assessment on FAIR digital objects will be cross-cutting themes in WP4. We will include a section in both the midterm and final report outlining the implications of our findings, including barriers, solutions and lessons learned for creating an equitable and inclusive research assessment system and assessing FAIR digital objects.
Through various tasks in WP4, we will create new evidence on the efficacy and impact of different types of research assessment tools and methods. We will study the impact of 1) using Journal Impact Factors and national journal registers in assessments (T4.2), 2) strategies for integrating quantitative vs. qualitative information when assessing the societal impact of research at the institutional and national level (T4.3), 3) using reflexivity and transparency measures to mitigate bias in peer review (T4.4), and 4) programs designed to reward graduate students for implementing reproducible, reusable and open research practices in their thesis research (Task 4.5).
We selected these themes to address four major challenges in research assessment, covering different levels of assessment (individual, institutional, national), different assessment objectives, and different actor groups involved in assessments. Diversity and inclusion across genders and underrepresented groups and infrastructures and tools needed to base research assessment on FAIR digital objects will be cross-cutting themes in WP4.
WP4 uses a broad range of methods, selected to meet the needs of individual tasks. We will work collaboratively with stakeholders, using co-design and co-creation techniques, to refine the research questions and study designs for each planned study (T4.1, see also methods for objective 5 below). We will use qualitative methods, including interviews and focus groups with researchers, institutions, and funders, to gain insight into stakeholders’ perspectivesand experiences with specific research assessment tools and methods (T4.2 and 4.3).
We will also systematically analyse documents and registers, such as national publication registers (T4.2), policy and evaluation documents (T4.3), and graduate program requirements (T4.5), to understand current practices, and compare and contrast these practices across institutions and countries (T4.2, 4.3, and 4.5). This will provide foundational data to examine the impact of differing practices. The results of these comparisons will be shared through interactive dashboards, allowing others to visualize and use this knowledge and access underlying data sources.
We will perform an experimental comparative study to systematically evaluate the efficacy of reflexivity and transparency interventions to mitigate bias in peer review (T4.4). Finally, we will perform observational studies, pooling data from two or three institutions, to examine the impact of programs that reward and incentivize graduate students for implementing reproducible, reusable and open research practices in their thesis research (T4.5).
SWPS kieruje zadaniem nr 4.3.
Task 4.3 : Impact assessment via narratives and indicators – Integrating indicators and narratives for societal impact assessment
This task investigates how qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated in societal impact assessment across national research evaluation systems, guided by CoARA Principle 2, which emphasizes qualitative, peer-reviewed assessment supported by responsible use of indicators. Focusing on countries with established frameworks—such as the UK (REF), Netherlands (SEP), Poland, Norway, and others—we will explore how definitions of impact, discursive practices, and infrastructures shape diverse evaluative cultures. Using three data sources—policy and evaluation documents, submitted outputs (e.g., impact case studies or self-evaluations), and empirical data from interviews or focus groups with policymakers, administrators, reviewers, and researchers—we will examine both the practical use of quantitative indicators (e.g., policy citations, patents, public engagement metrics) and the conceptual boundaries between qualitative and quantitative assessment. The project will include a systematic overview of national systems and an in-depth analysis of 3–5 selected countries. Based on our findings, we will generate recommendations for responsible integration of narratives and metrics in impact evaluation. Outputs will include a European dashboard of impact assessment approaches (the specific information to be included in the dashboard will be sourced from stakeholders in T4.1), country-level SWOT analyses, and practical guidance for evaluators and institutions.
Work package 5
Objectives:
This work package will develop a practical, multi-level framework to help institutions and national systemsunderstand and respond to the conditions that shape their capacity to engage with research assessment reformsaligned with CoARA principles. The framework will be grounded in empirical analysis, drawing on comparativecase studies and document analysis, and designed to inform decision-making, planning, and strategic reflection.
To develop a context-rich understanding of how reform pathways are being shaped and enacted across Europe, we will combine comparative case studies with structured analysis of organisational action plans and national policy environments. We identify diverse starting points, readiness conditions, and system dynamics through three interlinked tasks.
SWPS jest zaangażowane w zadania 5.1, 5.2 i 5.3
Task 5.1 – Initial framework of contextual factors and potential biases
This mapping exercise will define and describe structures and factors influencing the uptake and implementation of responsible assessment initiatives in Europe and beyond. The task covers, for example, geographical, cultural and legal contexts, levels and types of assessment and organisation types, field of science (including SSH), and range of potential biases and disparities (e.g. gender, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, socio-economic, disability mentioned in ARRA). The task will produce an overview of contextual factors and biases based on desk research and review of existing scholarly and grey literature, policy documents, descriptive statistical analysis of institutional CoARA signatories (e.g., via European Higher Education Sector Observatory), and evidence synthesized on the SOLES platform, in a feedback/feedforward approach with T3.1 and T3.2.
Task 5.2 – System Readiness Mapping
This task assesses the macro-level conditions shaping readiness for research assessment reform across seven countries represented in the project consortium: Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Spain. We will analyse national science and higher education policy environments, legal and regulatory frameworks, academic career structures, funding and evaluation models (including national assessment exercises), the influence of professional bodies and journals, infrastructural maturity, and progress on action plans. Drawing on policy documents, academic literature, and interviews with national-level actors such as funders and policymakers, the study will map the governance arrangements affecting assessment at various levels (researcher, project, unit, institution). This analysis will provide a contextual foundation to understand how system-level factors enable or constrain institutional capacity for reform implementation.
Task 5.3 : Comparative Case Studies and Readiness and Implementation Pathways Framework for Responsible Research Assessment
This task involves conducting seven in-depth case studies of CoARA signatories and potential research-performing organisation signatories to examine strategic planning, reform readiness, and implementation processes. Each case study will include 6–8 semi-structured interviews with institutional leaders, implementers, and academic staff (including sceptical voices), as well as analysis of internal documents, action plans, country-specific CoARA Boost outputs and available descriptive data.
Using a maximum variation sampling approach and selecting one case per consortium country, we will ensure diversity in institution type, reform stage, discipline, and CoARA engagement.Each case will map change processes and contextual readiness factors, linking institutional reform efforts to broader system-level conditions. Drawing on empirical data from these case studies and earlier tasks, and integrating relevant concepts from innovation readiness literature and drawing on SOLES literature (WP3), we will iteratively build and refine a practical framework of implementation and readiness pathways.
The framework will identify and explain mismatches between macro-level readiness and meso-level realities, synthesizing contextual enablers, barriers, process and outcome measures, and interim progress markers. Validation will involve member checks and feedback from dedicated stakeholders to ensure the framework offers evidence-informed, actionable insights tailored to different readiness types and institutional contexts.responsible assessment initiatives in Europe and beyond. The task covers, for example, geographical, cultural and legal contexts, levels and types of assessment and organisation types, field of science (including SSH), and range of potential biases and disparities (e.g. gender, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, socio-economic, disability mentioned in ARRA). The task will produce an overview of contextual factors and biases based on desk research and review of existing scholarly and grey literature, policy documents, descriptive statistical analysis of institutional CoARA signatories (e.g., via European Higher Education Sector Observatory),