Outlier Science
Research Consulting for Universities and Institutions
Build the capabilities that help research progress across your institution. Outlier Science offers a framework for assessing research performance, identifying practical priorities and developing the processes, support and infrastructure needed to act on them.
CONNECTED INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Six capabilities.
One research ecosystem.
Conceptual framework: priorities and scope are established for each institution.
Connect evidence to institutional priorities.
Build usable processes and support.
Develop methods and publication capability.
Prepare credible research funding plans.
Connect teams around shared research.
Interpret progress and research contribution.
On this page 12 sections
01
Start with the institutional decision
Your university may want stronger international publication performance, more competitive funding applications or a more consistent research-support function. Those ambitions become manageable when they are translated into specific decisions: which departments need support, what prevents work from progressing, where investment would help and who will be responsible for implementation.
Research consulting can begin with one faculty, a research centre or a university-wide question. A focused starting point is often useful when budgets are limited or institutional data are incomplete. The work should establish what is known, what remains uncertain and which actions are justified by the evidence.
An institution with a clear strategy may need implementation support rather than another strategic report. Another may need to establish a reliable baseline before selecting priorities. Both needs deserve an engagement that is proportionate to the decision.
02
Understand performance before setting targets
A research performance audit can examine publication patterns, collaboration, funding activity, research-support processes and data quality. Departmental profiles help distinguish capacity constraints from differences in discipline, research stage or reporting coverage.
The analysis should account for how records were collected. A publication count can change because affiliation records were corrected, because a database changed its coverage or because genuine output increased. Those explanations have different implications for management. A useful baseline makes them visible.
Institutional priorities also need evidence beyond database records. Staff interviews, project inventories, grant histories, internal review processes and laboratory usage can help explain why promising work does not progress. These sources support interpretation rather than replacing academic judgement with a single score.
If your immediate need is a dependable reporting structure, research information management can define records, responsibilities and reporting requirements. Buying a platform and improving the quality of the information inside it are separate tasks.
03
Develop a strategy that can be implemented
A research strategy should connect institutional ambitions with choices about people, fields, partnerships, infrastructure and support. It should explain where to concentrate effort, what must be in place and what the institution will defer.
University research strategy support can bring evidence from departments into an institutional framework. The work can include priority-setting discussions, an implementation roadmap and a measurement plan. Each action needs an owner with enough authority and capacity to carry it forward.
For example, an institutional objective to strengthen interdisciplinary research might require seed-funding criteria, clearer access to shared equipment, support for consortium formation and a review process for emerging projects. The strategy becomes useful when those dependencies are explicit.
An agreed review interval allows leaders to assess whether the work is progressing and whether assumptions have changed. A strategy should remain open to evidence without being rewritten whenever an individual indicator moves.
04
Improve publication capacity through the research pipeline
Universities seeking to increase Scopus and Web of Science publication output often need a clearer view of work before submission. Which projects have viable questions? Which need methodological help? Which have data but no analysis plan? Which manuscripts are close to submission, and which require substantial further work?
Publication-capacity development can connect research planning, mentoring, methods support, writing development, internal review and suitable journal selection. Faculty members can receive different forms of support according to the stage and needs of their projects.
The programme should also address institutional conditions. Researchers need clear routes to support, realistic internal deadlines and clarity about what assistance is available. A publication target without these arrangements gives departments an ambition but little practical means to pursue it.
Journal acceptance remains an independent decision. Progress can be reviewed through manuscript readiness, completion of agreed research tasks and use of support, alongside longer-term publication outcomes. Counts should be interpreted with discipline, quality, contribution and time lag in view.
05
Make research support easier to use
A research-support function should help people know where to go and what information to provide. It also needs clear boundaries between academic judgement, administrative checks, ethics review, contracting, data protection and financial approval.
Research-office development can define the office's remit, service catalogue, staffing requirements, referral routes and working relationships. This is relevant both to a new office and to an established team whose responsibilities have expanded.
Research-process standardisation focuses on the workflows themselves. Examples include proposal approval, project initiation, research data handover, manuscript support requests and project close-out. A usable procedure identifies the trigger, responsible roles, required records and the point at which a decision is made.
The institution owns its policies and approvals. External support can help design, document and test a process, while adoption depends on managers and staff using it in routine work. Piloting a procedure with one research group can expose unnecessary steps before it is introduced more widely.
06
Connect funding and collaboration with institutional priorities
A university-wide funding pipeline needs a different approach from assistance with one application. Research funding strategy can examine research strengths, opportunity fit, investigator readiness and the internal support needed to develop applications.
At project level, support can include grant proposal development or a structured proposal review. The scope should clarify whether the work covers research logic, work packages, impact, budgets, presentation or a combination.
International collaboration also needs a research purpose. A partner list becomes useful when it connects complementary expertise, a shared question, practical responsibilities and a credible route to working together. Collaboration support and consortium development can address those different stages.
Named funders, calls and potential partners require current checks. An expression of interest is not a confirmed partnership, and a submitted application is not an award.
07
Plan laboratory investment around the intended science
Scientific infrastructure belongs in an institutional research strategy. Before purchasing equipment, a university should establish the intended methods, likely sample volumes, facilities requirements, operator capacity and recurring costs.
Laboratory development planning can bring these questions into a coherent requirements brief. Equipment procurement consulting can then support comparison of technical fit, training, maintenance, consumables and other lifecycle commitments.
The decision may be to purchase equipment, share access across departments or use a suitable external provider. Each route has different implications for control, capacity, cost and project timing. Advice should make those trade-offs visible.
Quality-system work and accreditation-readiness support require an appropriate technical scope and qualified involvement. Consulting does not itself confer accreditation, and the institution's procurement and technical authorities retain their respective decisions.
08
Agree outputs that support action
A proposal should identify both the work and the evidence of completion. An audit report may be appropriate for diagnosis. Implementation may require additional deliverables such as revised procedures, training materials, a reporting specification or a pilot review.
Illustrative departmental review fields include department, research strengths, data coverage, projects by stage, support gaps, priority actions, responsible owner and review date. A management summary can then explain which actions should proceed, which need further evidence and which depend on additional resources.
This example is a proposed format, not a client result. Its value is that it links observation to action. The final deliverables should use the institution's terminology and fit its governance and reporting arrangements.
A handover should also identify unfinished dependencies. An SOP awaiting institutional approval, a reporting field without a data owner and an equipment specification awaiting engineering confirmation are different kinds of outstanding work.
09
Measure progress with an agreed baseline
Select indicators that answer a management question. Each measure should have a definition, baseline period, data source, owner and review interval. Measures also need an explanation of what they cannot show.
Operational measures might include the proportion of eligible proposals receiving internal review, the time between a complete support request and its assigned decision, or completion of agreed data-management actions. Longer-term measures might examine publication outcomes, funding success, collaboration or research use.
These are suggested measurement categories, not universal targets. For example, an application success rate needs a clearly defined set of eligible decisions; including applications still awaiting a decision would distort it. Publication records also need a consistent date basis and treatment of duplicate affiliations.
A balanced framework helps leaders see whether support is being used and whether it is addressing the intended constraint. It also allows academic judgement and disciplinary context to remain part of assessment.
10
Choose the engagement that fits your institution
A diagnostic audit suits an institution that needs a baseline and prioritised recommendations. A scoped implementation project suits a defined process or capability gap. Workshops can build shared understanding and practical skills around a specific problem.
The proposed University Research Performance Programme brings several stages together over an agreed period. The Institutional Research Support Partnership provides a structure for recurring support with defined capacity and review arrangements.
Scope depends on the number of units involved, the quality and accessibility of records, the depth of specialist work, the consultation required and the implementation responsibilities. Procurement requirements, institutional approvals, travel and third-party costs must be addressed before work is agreed. Explore engagement options for the differences.
11
Questions from institutional teams
Can the work begin with one department?
Yes. A departmental scope can test the usefulness of an approach and produce a manageable set of priorities. The findings should not be treated as representative of the whole university without further evidence. Any later expansion needs to account for different disciplines and support arrangements.
Do we need a complete research database first?
No. An initial review can assess the records available and identify important gaps. The scope must distinguish analysis that can be supported now from work that depends on further data preparation. Missing records should remain visible rather than being treated as zero activity.
Can you work with our existing research office?
The engagement can be designed around the office's responsibilities and capacity. Agree a lead contact, access arrangements, decision rights and the tasks that will remain internal. This helps external support complement existing expertise and leaves clear ownership after handover.
Can the engagement support more internationally indexed publications?
Publication-capacity work can address the research and support processes that lead towards suitable submissions. It cannot guarantee acceptance or database coverage. The first step is to understand the institution's project pipeline and determine where targeted assistance would be useful.
12
Discuss your institutional priorities
Tell us which part of research performance or support you want to improve, which units are involved and what decision you need to make. A short description is enough for the initial inquiry. Detailed records can follow after the scope and information-sharing arrangements have been discussed.