Research strategy
Research Performance Audits for Universities and Institutions
Understand what is helping research progress, where work becomes delayed, and which changes deserve attention first. A research performance audit brings institutional evidence, departmental context and support processes into one assessment. Outlier Science can help define a reliable baseline and turn the findings into practical decisions about research development, publication capacity, funding support and scientific infrastructure.
The starting point is your institution’s purpose. A teaching-focused university building research activity needs a different assessment from an established research institute reviewing a specialist portfolio.
On this page 9 sections
01
Establish a baseline that answers management questions
An audit is useful when leaders need to decide where to invest, which departments need support, or why existing initiatives are not producing the expected progress. Publication counts alone cannot explain whether a problem sits in study design, staff workload, data access, project coordination, manuscript preparation or the way outputs are recorded.
The assessment can examine the relationship between research ambitions and the conditions needed to deliver them. This includes the distribution of active projects, available methodological support, access to equipment, internal review arrangements and the responsibilities of research-support staff. Departmental discussions give context to patterns that look straightforward in a spreadsheet.
Before analysis begins, the institution agrees the decisions the audit should inform. Examples include selecting priorities for the next planning cycle, assessing the need for a research office, or designing a faculty development programme. A decision-led brief keeps the work focused and prevents a large report from becoming a substitute for action.
If priorities are already clear and the need is to set direction, university research strategy may be the more suitable starting point.
02
What the assessment can cover
Publication analysis can describe output types, subject areas, collaboration patterns and changes over an agreed period. Where authorised data are available, Web of Science or Scopus records can form part of the evidence. The analysis should identify the exact source, coverage, retrieval date and counting method so that readers understand what the figures represent.
Institutional records add information that publication databases may not capture: current studies, proposals in preparation, research supervision, datasets, software, local-language scholarship and other contributions relevant to the university’s mission. These records can also reveal a difference between research that has been completed and research that has been recorded consistently.
The operational review examines how projects move from an idea to approved research, analysis, publication and follow-on work. It can identify repeated handovers, unclear approvals, gaps in specialist support and activities that rely on a single person. Laboratory access and procurement constraints can be included where they affect the research portfolio.
Findings are interpreted with disciplinary and career-stage context. The CoARA commitments support qualitative assessment informed by responsibly used quantitative indicators. A responsible institutional audit therefore treats metrics as evidence to discuss, rather than a complete verdict on people or departments.
03
Evidence and participation needed from your institution
Useful starting material includes the current research strategy, an organisational chart, a departmental list, available publication exports, project and funding records, and descriptions of existing support services. Existing reports are worth reviewing even when their definitions are inconsistent: those differences can reveal a reporting problem that needs attention.
Data access is agreed before the scope is finalised. A subscription held by a university does not automatically permit every form of external access or reuse. The engagement can use institution-supplied exports, authorised access or suitable public sources, with limitations recorded. No particular database subscription is assumed.
An institutional sponsor should help confirm scope and resolve access questions. Departmental contacts provide context and check whether the interpretation is fair. Library, research-office, finance, information-technology and laboratory staff may need to contribute where their work affects the questions under review.
The aim is to collect the minimum evidence needed for useful conclusions. An initial audit does not need unrestricted access to every personnel file or confidential project document. Sensitive material and identification of individual researchers require an agreed purpose and appropriate handling.
04
From initial questions to a reviewable assessment
The first stage defines the unit of analysis, period, sources, priority questions and outputs. It also separates mandatory institutional reporting from questions chosen for internal improvement. This prevents an exploratory management review from being mistaken for a formal external evaluation.
The evidence review then checks completeness, duplicate records, department assignments and inconsistent definitions. Where uncertainty or coverage problems remain, the report describes their effect. A change caused by affiliation corrections, for example, should not be presented as new research growth.
Analysis and stakeholder discussion follow together. Numerical patterns generate questions; interviews and document review help establish plausible explanations. A bottleneck is recorded as a supported finding, a provisional interpretation or an unanswered question, rather than allowing all three to appear equally certain.
A findings review gives institutional contacts an opportunity to correct factual errors and explain missing context. The final package can then combine an executive summary, departmental profiles, a method and limitations note, and an action register. Implementation can be commissioned as a subsequent stage or built into a University Research Performance Programme.
05
Illustrative deliverable: a departmental evidence table
The following is an illustrative structure, not a report of client results. Each row connects an observation with the evidence needed to support a decision.
Assessment area | Evidence to examine | Decision supported |
|---|---|---|
Publication records | Source exports, affiliation variants, duplicate checks | Whether reported output needs correction before comparison |
Research pipeline | Active studies, analysis readiness, manuscripts in preparation | Where methods or writing support should be scheduled |
Proposal development | Opportunity records, internal reviews, submission decisions | Whether a clearer funding development process is needed |
Research support | Service requests, ownership, referral routes | Which support responsibilities require clarification |
Infrastructure | Equipment access, service delays, required capabilities | Whether an infrastructure review should precede expansion |
A completed departmental profile would explain the confidence in each observation, its context, and any alternative interpretation. It would distinguish an immediate action from an issue requiring further investigation.
For example, a department reporting few manuscripts might have several studies awaiting analysis. The appropriate response could be a defined methods-support pathway and protected completion time. A generic publishing workshop would address a different problem. This is the level of practical distinction the audit should make possible.
06
Priorities and measures that can be followed after handover
Recommendations need an owner, a dependency and a way to judge progress. A prioritised action register can separate changes that the institution can make with existing resources from those requiring procurement, recruitment, specialist expertise or policy approval. The importance of an action and its ease of delivery should remain separate judgements.
A balanced monitoring framework can include process measures, capability measures and longer-term research outcomes. For example, the proportion of eligible proposals receiving internal review can be monitored alongside evidence of stronger proposal readiness. Publication and funding results then provide a longer-term view, interpreted with the relevant time lag.
Each measure should have a definition, a baseline period, a data source, a responsible owner and a review interval. If the baseline cannot be established reliably, the first action is to improve the record, not invent a target. The framework should also identify behaviours that the measure could unintentionally encourage.
Where the principal issue is the quality of institutional records, research information management can develop the definitions and processes needed to maintain the baseline.
07
Scope, timing and quotation
The scope depends on the number of units, the questions to be answered, the condition of the data, the number of stakeholders and the depth of analysis. A focused faculty review is different from a university-wide assessment involving multiple campuses and information systems.
The quotation can distinguish evidence preparation, analysis, workshops, reporting and any implementation support. Agreed milestones should identify the material needed from the institution, the review window and the acceptance criteria for each output. If new questions or additional datasets arise, their effect on scope can be reviewed before work expands.
An audit does not itself change staffing, approve policy, acquire software or carry out every recommended action. It also does not guarantee publication growth, funding awards or ranking movement. Its immediate value is a defensible assessment and a clearer set of choices for institutional leaders.
08
Questions about a research performance audit
Can the audit focus on Scopus and Web of Science output?
Yes, the agreed questions can give those sources particular attention. The assessment should still examine the underlying research pipeline, source coverage and data quality. Restricting every conclusion to indexed publications would leave important parts of institutional research activity unexplained.
What if our publication records are incomplete?
The first stage can establish what can be used reliably and which gaps need correction. Data preparation may become a separate deliverable. Conclusions should be proportionate to the evidence, with incomplete periods or departments clearly identified.
Can departments be compared fairly?
Comparisons need a clear purpose and relevant context. Department size, discipline, research time, output types and career stages affect interpretation. A useful comparison explains those differences and avoids turning unlike departments into an unsupported league table.
Does the audit assess individual staff performance?
That is not an automatic part of an institutional diagnostic. Individual-level analysis requires a defined purpose, appropriate authority, agreed criteria and safeguards. The main service is designed around institutional capacity, support systems and departmental needs.
Can the work begin with one faculty?
Yes. A defined pilot can test the evidence model, stakeholder questions and reporting format before wider use. The pilot should record which findings are local and which could reasonably inform a broader assessment.
09
Discuss the decisions your audit needs to support
Tell us which part of the institution you want to assess, the questions leadership needs answered and the records already available. You do not need to prepare a complete dataset before making an inquiry. The research-performance self-assessment can help organise the initial discussion.