Abstract:Introduction: The focus on quantitative indicators-number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index-has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable 'publish or perish' culture. To this end, we investigated the perspectives of biomedical researchers on responsible assessment criteria that foster responsible conduct of research. Methods: We performed a qualitative focus group study among 3 University medical centers in the Netherlands. In these centers, we performed 2 randomly selected groups of early career researchers (PhD and postdoc level & senior researchers (associate and full professors) from these 3 institutions and explored how relational responsibilities relate to responsible conduct of research and inquired how potential (formal) assessment criteria could correspond with these responsibilities. Results: In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. As these responsibilities pertain to intercollegiate relations, we henceforth refer to them as relational. After our systematic analysis of these relational responsibilities, participants suggested some ideas to improve current assessment criteria. We focused on how these duties can be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science (both individual as collective), suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices. However, participants stressed that unclarity about the new assessment criteria would only cause more publication stress and insecurity about evaluation of their performance. Conclusion: Our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as they correspond with and aspire the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions how to make these skills quantifiable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy, implementation can cause uncertainties among those assessed and consequently, future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice to make them applicable to measure and assess responsible research practices in institutions. Trial registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/.

Towards responsible research assessment: How to reward research quality

Promoting research quality

Responsible assessment of what research? Beware of epistemic diversity!

How to measure research performance of single scientists? A proposal for an index based on scientific prizes: The Prize Winner Index (PWI)

Impact Vitality - A Measure for Excellent Scientists

What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives

Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives

Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study

Towards a Democratic University: A call for Reflexive Evaluation and a Participative Culture

Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK’s national research assessment exercise

Credit where credit is due

Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars

A Reputation Economy: Results from an Empirical Survey on Academic Data Sharing

Is big team research fair in national research assessments? The case of the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021

An international perspective on the German Excellence Initiative

A figure of merit that includes 5 distinct performance indicators to improve research evaluation of academic scholars'

Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness

Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater: The Undesirable Effects of National Research Assessment Exercises on Research

"Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science

Terms in journal articles associating with high quality: Can qualitative research be world-leading?

Practicing responsible research assessment: Qualitative study of faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure assessments in the United States