Some of the world¡¯s biggest research funders have warned against asking academics to produce ¡°excellent¡± research, fearing that, when ill-defined, the term pressures researchers to rush out findings and discourages the low-key but?vital work of reproducing others¡¯ results.

The recommendations from Science Europe, which represents national funding bodies wielding a collective annual budget of €18?billion (?16.3?billion), appears to be the first official pushback against an approach to judging academics¡¯ work that some critics believe damages research culture

¡°It is true that we talked sometimes too lightly of ¡®excellence¡¯,¡± said Lidia Borrell-Damian, Science Europe¡¯s secretary general.

The term ¡°research excellence¡± took off in the 1980s and has shot up in usage ever since. It is now deeply entrenched in policy.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

In 2005, Germany launched a?national excellence initiative, sprinkling money and prestige over a select few universities.?And in the UK, after its final incarnation in 2008, the research assessment exercise, a periodic audit of research quality used to determine university funding allocations, was renamed the research excellence framework (REF).

But demanding ¡°excellence¡± of academics and grant proposals ¡°as a catch-word without qualification, may lead to a variety of unintended consequences¡±, according to a statement released by Science Europe.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Funders and universities should be ¡°cautious¡± about using terms such as excellence ¡°in isolation as a specific criterion within assessment processes¡±, says its Position Statement and Recommendations on Research Assessment Processes. In a study last year, the association found that none of the research organisations it spoke to that used ¡°excellence¡± as a criterion provided a ¡°formal, single¡± definition of the term.

Used without clear definition, the term piles pressure on academics to publish even when a research project needs more time, said Dr Borrell-Damian. ¡°You try to be ¡®excellent¡¯ with whatever you have,¡± she said.

It valorises scientists who make ¡°breakthroughs¡±, she argued, at the expense of the crucial follow-up work of replicating colleagues¡¯ results ¨C potentially worsening science¡¯s reproducibility crisis.

In addition, the word potentially promotes ¡°individualism¡± rather than ¡°team science¡±, the position statement says.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°Everybody wants the [research] group to be excellent, but you have to excel in relation to your colleagues as well,¡± Dr Borrell-Damian said.

Many of Science Europe¡¯s criticisms echo a 2017 broadside against the ¡°fetishisation of excellence¡± by a group of academics?that argued that the term contributed to ¡°hyper-competition¡± among?scholars and researchers?and called instead for a rhetoric that promotes ¡°soundness¡± and ¡°thoroughness¡± in science rather than ¡°flashy claims of superiority¡±.

One of the co-authors, Martin Paul Eve, professor of literature, technology and publishing at Birkbeck, University of London, said it was ¡°gratifying to see these problems recognised by funders¡± and said he hoped that ¡°this might lead to new innovative and distributive funding paradigms that foster collaboration, rather than competition, between researchers¡±.

What impact, if any, the advice might have is still unclear. UK?Research and Innovation, one of Science Europe¡¯s members, is set to conduct the UK¡¯s next REF in 2021. Using the term ¡°excellence¡± is not necessarily a problem, argued Dr Borrell-Damian, as long as it is properly defined. ¡°The devil is in the detail,¡± she added.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Asked to clarify the meaning of ¡°excellence¡±, a UKRI spokeswoman pointed to REF guidance documents that flesh out what ¡°excellent¡± means in concrete terms. The highest-rated research is defined as ¡°outstandingly novel¡± or ¡°a?primary or essential point of reference¡±, for example.

david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com