Potential limiting factor on engaged research: Academic evaluation systems

I read with interest the paper by Bednarek et al. (1). They identify several factors that may hinder the implementation of engaged research. At the same time, Bednarek et al. give very insightful advice on driving engaged research further from a funder’s perspective. This is undoubtedly of immense value to the academic community in better understanding the value of engaged research and conducting high-quality engaged research.

However, Bednarek et al. seem to have overlooked an important barrier to the implementation of engaged research: namely, the impact of the existing academic evaluation system on the underlying motivation of researchers to conduct research. Given my professional background, allow me to use the field of medicine as an example. Ideally, medical research would aim to solve scientific problems that promise to significantly impact public health and well-being. However, reality often runs counter to this ideal. The current academic evaluation system is closely linked to performance appraisal, career advancement, financial rewards, and power within the organization (2). Increasingly, researchers are forced to prioritize the ease of obtaining grants and the number of publications over the intrinsic significance and societal value of the scientific research they undertake (3, 4). Such prioritization may inadvertently detract from the core mission of advancing knowledge and addressing pressing health issues. At the same time, academic misconduct in academia is rampant around the world (5), and a great deal of research is wasted on publication fees in predatory journals (6, 7). As a result, there is often significant resistance to the implementation of engaged research. On the one hand, engaged research often requires longer and more complex processes, and it is difficult to achieve significant academic results in the short term (8). On the other hand, it is difficult for the results of engaged research to be fully recognized in the existing evaluation system, which further restricts the motivation of researchers to participate in such research.

Therefore, to address this issue, it is imperative to reform the current evaluation system, which may distort research motivation. Funders have a major role to play in this.

1. Diversify the evaluation criteria: Instead of taking the number of papers published as the only criterion in assessing funded projects, more emphasis should be placed on the innovativeness of the research, the scope and continuity of its impact (9), and so on.

2. Flexible Evaluation Cycle: For each project, the evaluation cycle should be determined by mutual negotiation between the funder and the researcher, instead of three or five years as has become the practice.

3. Continuous funding mechanism: Funding for truly valuable projects should be continuous to ensure that researchers can focus on the research itself without having to publish a certain number of papers to apply for more funding support.

Through these reforms, researchers will be more motivated to conduct engaged research, playing a vital role in solving social problems and advancing knowledge. Additionally, this will help improve the academic evaluation system and foster a positive interaction between academic research and social practice.