1 / 12

Task force Evaluation Metrics Report on activities

Task force Evaluation Metrics Report on activities. Johanna Eder Stuttgart. Task Force members. Johanna Eder; Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart [Henrik Enghoff; Natural History Museum of Denmark - University of Copenhagen] John Jackson; Natural History Museum, London

sammy
Download Presentation

Task force Evaluation Metrics Report on activities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Task force Evaluation MetricsReport on activities Johanna Eder Stuttgart

  2. Task Force members • Johanna Eder; Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart • [Henrik Enghoff; Natural History Museum of Denmark - University of Copenhagen] • John Jackson; Natural History Museum, London • Gaël Lancelot, EDIT office, NMHN Paris • Karol Marhold; Institute of Botany, Slovakian Academy of Sciences • Camille Pisani; Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences • Eric Smets, National Herbarium Netherlands, Bert Geerken, Naturalis

  3. Objectives • European/EDIT standard evaluation metrics for institutions sharing a focus on taxonomy and collections • applicable both the institutional and individual (scientist) level • implementation into institutional evaluation/audit policy • offer standardized measure to external evaluation authorities

  4. Summary of workflow • Task force meeting in Carvoeiro (December 2009): the full list of criteria used by institutions was presented (redundance/ specific criteria due to specificities of individual institutions) • EDIT Board of Directors (BoD 6) gave a mandate to the task force to develop a shortlist of criteria. • These criteria should focus on the specificities of Natural History institutions, and present a clear and broad categorization on the impact of taxonomic activity. • submit a MoU to the Board

  5. Summary of workflow • Members of the task force each identified 10 to 15 criteria that seemed essential to them. • The chairwoman and secretary of the task force produced a synthesis of these criteria, • Approval of this synthesis by the task force.

  6. Summary of workflow • A draft MoU was produced and approved by the task force. • This draft MoU was submitted to the MNHN legal department, which gave its assent to its submission to the EDIT BoD. • The MoU and its Annex (with the list of criteria itself) was added to the agenda of the 7th EDIT BoD (Annex 4 of the agenda).

  7. Next actions required • Discussion in the BoD 7 • Approval by the BoD • Decision of the BoD about the future of the task force (continue/resolve)

  8. Memorandum of Understanding • Paragraph 4 ….. This evaluation is not intended to supersede any other method of evaluation which may be currently in use, but to provide an additional evaluation/audit that is suited to the specificities of taxonomy as a science. The list is not exhaustive and every institution is free to add other criteria to it.

  9. Selected criteria for MoU Publications • Taxonomic Monograph, revision • Book, chapter in a book • Papers in peer-reviewed journals • % of papers in journals with impact factor Scientific Outreach • Scientific presentations/posters at international meetings/symposia • Invited lecture at international meetings/symposia • Expert opinions provided to stakeholders – number of science enquiries handled • Organisation, co-organisation of meetings & workshops, incl. learned societies events

  10. Selected criteria for MoU Collections • Number of research loans handled • Curation of collections – time effort • Data entry and curation into a (taxonomic/collection-related) database Funding and projects • Coordination of a third-party funded project • Number and value of new grants awarded • Fieldwork and expeditions (time effort, incl. organisation)

  11. Selected criteria for MoU Edition • Editing of proceedings or book with peer review • Chief editor of a journal with ISI impact factor or of an A journal of the ERIH lists • Chief editor of another scientific journal Public outreach • Scientific preparation of an exhibition • Presentations for the public • Publications for the public • Contributions to public media

  12. Selected criteria for MoU Teaching • Lectures, practicals for university-level students and other levels (time effort) • Textbooks • Supervision of PhD, Master, Bachelor student or equivalent Prizes • Obtaining an international scientific prize

More Related