9
disadvantage individuals who are less skilled or comfortable with writing, even if they are
highly skilled in their field of research. Nevertheless, we felt that voluntary narrative elements
can provide a more comprehensive view of a researcher's career, contributions, and
potential. This is particularly the case when they are used to complement other assessment
tools and metrics. They can highlight important aspects of a researcher's work that may not
be captured by traditional metrics.
Two mechanisms will hopefully counteract the potentially problematic aspects of the
narratives. There is an overall limit to the length of the section on the CV and track record,
so applicants have to choose how to allocate space to the various elements they wish to
report, and secondly, we included a request to explain achievements in neutral terms. In
addition, experience at the ERC shows that panels are wary of boastful applications. The
instructions in the application form say: ‘You may include a short, factual explanation of the
significance of the selected outputs, your role in producing each of them, and how they
demonstrate your capacity to successfully carry out your proposed project’.
The responsibility for selecting and explaining the research outputs and elements of peer
recognition is thus left entirely to the applicant.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
Engagement in peer review, teaching, academic leadership and other contributions
Most researchers are engaged in academic activities that do not directly contribute to their
research. For university staff, the most prominent and often time-consuming of these is
teaching. All successful researchers are asked to participate in peer review, whether of
manuscripts or grant or fellowship proposals, whether as individual referees or as members
of evaluation panels. Related functions, but more peripheral to the actual research
enterprise, include the chairing of committees, presiding academies or learned societies,
developing training programmes, public outreach and other major contributions to the
community. These activities are crucial for the proper functioning of fundamental research,
and should be highly valued, but they are not sufficiently rewarded, as noted in many of the
recent discussions and documents on research assessment.
A generally accepted way of recognizing and rewarding these desirable activities has yet to
be found (researchers’ peer review record in ORCID, for example, or teaching assessments
in universities provide some starting points). One important question in our discussions was
whether in the context of the ERC’s evaluations, they should be recognized in some way
and be discounted against past scientific output, the argument being that researchers with
such a constraint on their time face a higher hurdle to assemble a large portfolio of research
outputs. This is particularly pertinent for PIs at universities with a heavy teaching load.
However, the new CV and track record no longer asks for quantity in output, nor for ‘prestige’
proxies. The excellence of the researcher should be measured by the quality of the outputs
they list, and not by the bulk they have produced. We also acknowledge that not all
researchers have equal capabilities or equal opportunities to take on such functions,
regardless of how excellent they are in doing frontier research. This would argue against
taking such activities into account when assessing the applicant.