ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Opinion Article
Revised

Making European performance and impact assessment frameworks for research infrastructures glocal

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
Previously titled: Making European performance and impact assessment frameworks glocal
PUBLISHED 02 Aug 2022
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

This article is included in the ELIXIR gateway.

This article is included in the Bioinformatics gateway.

This article is included in the Innovations in Research Assessment collection.

Abstract

Sustainability of research infrastructures (RIs) is a big challenge for funders, stakeholders and operators, and the development and adoption of adequate management tools is a major concern, namely tools for monitoring and evaluating their performance and impact. BioData.pt is the Portuguese Infrastructure of Biological data and the Portuguese node of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures "Landmark" ELIXIR. The foundations of this national research infrastructure were laid under the “Building BioData.pt” project, for four years. During this period, performance and impact indicators were collected and analysed under the light of international guidelines for assessing the performance and impact of European research infrastructures produced by the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the EU-funded RI-PATHS project. The exercise shared herein showed that these frameworks can be adopted by national RIs, with the necessary adaptations, namely to reflect the national landscape and specificity of activities, and can be powerful tools in supporting the management of RIs.
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts”. (Attributed to William Bruce Cameron)

Keywords

biological data, FAIR, research management, open science, performance and impact indicators, research infrastructures, socio-economic impact

Revised Amendments from Version 1

This version has a different title, correcting a previous lapse: “Making European performance and impact assessment frameworks for research infrastructures glocal”.
The main modification of its content is a larger and deeper discussion of the management implications of the study performed herein, including a more detailed description of the overall process of indicator collection and analysis and the managerial structure within which it was conducted.
In detail:
The “Discussion section” was modified to also reflect on the operational phase of BioData.pt beyond the “Building BioData.pt” project.
The adaptability of the three impact assessment frameworks conceived for European RIs at the national node level was further specified, namely respecting the relevance of the different indicators and their adaptation from global level to a glocal context.
The managerial process was further detailed, namely the leadership, the size and profile of the team that perform the study at its different stages, the benefits of a participatory approach and also recommendations for future similar exercises were provided.
In the ‘Methods section,’ the procedure and criteria for scoring the indicators was futher detailed.
An overall proofreading was performed.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Enrico Guarini and Marialuisa Lavitrano
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Eugénio Campos Ferreira

Introduction

The long-term sustainability of Research Infrastructures[1] (RIs) is of great importance to the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) and the European Union more broadly, as shown by calls for RIs to demonstrate their economic and wider benefit to society.1 For the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), sustainability is also a major concern as RIs represent an increasingly large share of research investment by national governments.2 As a result, recent years have seen the emergence of a number of frameworks (ESFRI, OECD and that developed by the EU-funded RI-PATHS project) to guide RIs in their journeys to demonstrate performance and impact, going beyond simply scientific impact, and considering public value more generally.

Motivation

BioData.pt is the Portuguese Infrastructure of Biological Data and the Portuguese node of ELIXIR. Anticipating external pressure from funders, government or citizens, BioData.pt, under the internal leadership of Ana Portugal Melo as Executive Director, initiated this study as an instrument to evaluate the impact of public investment in such a research infrastructure, and support decision making in further funding to this and other RIs. The goal of this study was to consider three frameworks for impact and performance evaluation (ESFRI, OECD and RI-PATHS) in relation to existing indicators maintained by the BioData.pt project, from now on referred to as “Building BioData.pt”, funded via the Portuguese state budget and European structural funds. From this, we expected to gain a more systematic, structured, and deeper understanding of the performance and impact of this national-level RI, and to use this new knowledge to inform its further development towards long-term sustainability. Beyond the qualitative assessment itself, this exercise aimed to document a process that may help national nodes of distributed European RIs to understand the impact of their activities, to inform stakeholders, policy makers and funders, as well as to improve their operations and increase their visibility, and overall prestige. In addition, it aimed to assess the relevance and adequacy of the indicators used by BioData.pt. It is expected that our findings, including lessons learned, will be useful to other similar public-funded RIs, which are often working with limited resources and do not have the means to fund repeated impact evaluations by specialized consultancies.

Organization and historical path

Although BioData.pt is the Portuguese Infrastructure of Biological Data and the Portuguese Node of the ESFRI Landmark ELIXIR (a pan-European research infrastructure for life science data, Ref. 3), it relies on fixed-term project funds to operate. A historical note of BioData.pt and the Portuguese Node of ELIXIR is depicted in Figure 1.

d11306cf-ee40-457d-9f45-796074e46e4d_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Historical path of the Portuguese Node of ELIXIR.

In 2010, a Portuguese researcher from IGC (Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência) at the European Bioinformatics Institute was challenged to participate in the onset of ELIXIR and create the Portuguese Node of this, yet to be, research infrastructure. In 2011, a first step was done, by creating the Portuguese bioinformatics woody plants platform followed by the creation of BioData.pt – Portuguese Biological Data Network, to operate the Portuguese Node of ELIXIR (ELIXIR PT), in 2013. In the same year, the ELIXIR, an intergovernmental organisation bringing together life science resources from across Europe, namely, databases, software tools, training materials, cloud storage and supercomputers, was founded. In 2014, the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, on behalf of the Portuguese Government, signed the ELIXIR Consortium Agreement, by which Portugal adhered to ELIXIR and, in 2016, a collaboration agreement between INESC-ID (Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores, Investigação e Desenvolvimento) and ELIXIR was signed, creating the Portuguese Node of this pan-European infrastructure. The merger between BioData.pt and ELIXIR PT was formalized in 2018 and, very recently, already in 2021, the BioData.pt Association was founded as the legal entity of this RI.

Since 2017, the development and early operation of BioData.pt have been funded through a €2.7M project grant to last for four years, to lay the foundation of this RI. The “Building BioData.pt” project involved 11 beneficiaries and 81 participants, many of which providing in-kind expertise on computing, bioinformatics and data management to a range of end-users, as well as building and operating the infrastructure itself. Of the project budget, 33% was used to hire human resources and 57% to purchase equipment, mostly computing resources to assemble the nationally distributed computing infrastructure. The remainder was used in the adaptation of buildings to host the computing infrastructure or to deliver training. “Building BioData.pt” was structured as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Working groups (WG) of the “Building BioData.pt” project, which was instrumental to the creation and early operation of the BioData.pt infrastructure.

Research CommunitiesSupport to Research CommunitiesIndustry Engagement
WG1 - PlantsWG6 - Common InfrastructureWG8 - Industry & Entrepreneurship
WG2 - Marine ResourcesWG7 - Training
WG3 - Systems biologyWG3 - Systems biology
WG4 - NeurosciencesWG10 - Project Management & Dissemination
WG5 - Yeastract

Methods

Based on the simplified RI-PATHS approach, which classifies indicator types in activity (concrete activities to be carried out within the scope of the project, visible to the public and under full control of the organization), outcome (short-term direct results of each activity, not under direct control of the organization) and impact (transformative effects of the activity on its target audience and beyond, in the mid to long term),4 a “BioData.pt Monitoring and Evaluation Matrix” (B-MEM) (Figure 2, Ref. 5) and supporting guidelines were developed to facilitate the onset of evaluation processes, by the BioData.pt infrastructure. This simple and participatory approach allowed the project management team (the project manager and the executive director) to view and document, for the first time, the 10 working groups (or work packages), involving about 50 researchers (Table 1) of “Building BioData.pt” in terms of activities, outcomes and impact, and align these with the overarching objectives of the project. In a second stage, the existing “Building BioData.pt” indicators, which had been maintained during the four years of grant execution (2017-2021), were categorized as activity, outcome and impact indicators, and assigned to the most relevant RI-PATHS impact area.

d11306cf-ee40-457d-9f45-796074e46e4d_figure2.gif

Figure 2. BioData.pt Monitoring and Evaluation Matrix.

This matrix, internally developed during the BioData.pt project, was used to understand and document project working groups in terms of activities, outcomes and impact.

Finally, each existing “Building BioData.pt” indicator, which could be quantitative or qualitative by nature, was documented and cross-checked against those compiled by the RI-PATHS project, and the OECD and ESFRI frameworks.

The following part of this study involved 3 additional experts (2 from BioData.pt and 1 from ELIXIR Hub) to reflect and perform a thorough analysis.

Taking advantage of the previous exercise, and to assess the commitment of BioData.pt with its purpose as a national RI and the Portuguese Node of ELIXIR, and its potential contribution to international initiatives such as EOSC and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the categorised “Building BioData.pt” indicators or proxies were assessed against several sets of strategic objectives relevant to research infrastructures and their work: those of BioData.pt (as an organisation), those of the current ELIXIR Scientific Programme,6 those of the Portuguese National Roadmap of Research Infrastructures from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT),7 those of EOSC8 and the SDGs.9 Arbitrary units (A.U.) were attributed to each of these dimensions, according to the level of BioData.pt commitments: objectives/goals of BioData.pt (4.5 A.U.), ELIXIR (2 A.U.), National Roadmap of RIs (2 A.U.), EOSC (1 A.U.) and the SDGs (0.5 A.U.), and a threshold was defined at 6.5 A.U., a score that could only be achieved if an indicator matched BioData.pt goals and, at least, those of ELIXIR or the National Roadmap of RIs, to which BioData.pt is bound by a formal relationship. Then, each indicator maintained during “Building BioData.pt” and categorised was analysed with respect to its contribution to the objectives of each of the former indicated organisations/initiatives.

To enable the visualisation of this analysis, a stacked column chart was generated entirely using the Rstudio software version 2021.09.0.351 and ggplot2 version 3.3.5,10 specifically using the ggplot() function, due to the complexity of the graphic. The fct_reorder() function of forcats version 0.5.1 was used to reorder indicators according to their relevance, in decreasing order.

Implementation and impact analysis

The first step was the description of the “Building BioData.pt” project working groups, in terms of activities, outcomes and impact, and their alignment with its two overarching objectives, using the BioData.pt Impact Assessment Matrix (B-MEM) and the respective guidelines. Working groups (WG) 1 to 5 were dedicated to domain specific activities which, overall, aimed to build the BioData.pt Research Communities, and their expected outcomes were data curation, integration and availability for domain-specific areas with impact in enhancing the quality of scientific research by promoting the FAIR principles. The global activity of WGs 6, 7, 9 and 10 was to set up the Support to Research Communities, having three outcome/impact lines: 1) a fully available computational infrastructure for data analysis/better and more extensive computing resources; 2) promotion of capacity-building in bioinformatics and research data management in the national research community/improved research efficiency & effectiveness and human capital; and 3) overall management of RI and operation of the Portuguese Node of ELIXIR/strengthened RI long-term sustainability. Both “Research Communities” and “Support to Research Communities” were developed under the objective “Strengthening research, technological development and innovation”. The second objective “Enhancing research knowledge transfer from academy to industry” was served by the activity Industry Engagement, developed by WG8, delivering promotion of knowledge transfer to industry to bring an added value to companies’ data and an industrial ecosystem of companies aware/beneficiary of bioinformatics and research data management as outcome and impact, respectively.

Yet with the help of the B-MEM, the “Building BioData.pt” project and Infrastructure reports were mined for indicators that would relate to those compiled by the ESFRI, OECD and RI-PATHS frameworks. Table 2 shows one example of this implementation, performed for the activity “Research Communities”, in relation to RI-PATHS. In detail, for this activity, we were able to find indicators of two types, activity and outcome, distinctly distributed by three of four impact areas, Human Resources, Economic and Innovation and Societal/Social. For each type of indicator identified, the indicator itself, the evidence for confirmation and method for description is listed. For instance, under the objective “Strengthening research, technological development and innovation”, in the activity “Research Communities”, the activity indicator Number of publications is identified by direct evidence (e.g., from Web of Science) and the method for collecting evidence is counting the number of publications. The full dataset of BioData.pt project indicators classified following the RI-PATHS approach can be accessed.11

Table 2. Example of primary data collected with the B-MEM, for “Building BioData.pt” activity Research Communities.

B-MEM follows the RI-PATHS approach, thus segmenting indicator types in Activity, Outcome or Impact, and requiring further description of the Evidence and Method used for indicator collection. WG (Working Group) 1 – Plants, WG2 – Marine Resources, WG3 – Systems biology, WG4 – Neurosciences, WG5 – Yeastract.

Project:BioData.pt - Portuguese Infrastructure of Biological Data
Description:BioData.pt is a research infrastructure that brings computing, bioinformatics and data management to the field of life sciences (health, biotechnology, marine and agroforest to enhance data intensive research)
Objectives/MissionO1. Strengthening research, technological development and innovation
ActivityResearch Communities (WG1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
OutcomeData curation, integration and availability for domain-specific areas
ImpactEnhance the quality of scientific research by promoting FAIR principles
Human ResourcesType of indicatorActivityOutcome
IndicatorNumber of publicationsCitations for publications
EvidenceDirectDirect
MethodCountingCounting
Economic and innovationType of indicatorActivityActivity
IndicatorNumber of computing applications developedResearch results fed into shared datasets/repositories
EvidenceDirectExternal report
MethodCountingLiaison with service accountables
Social/SocietalType of indicatorOutcome
IndicatorUse of open data
EvidenceStatistics of CorkOak DB portal
MethodDeduction
PolicyType of indicatorNo indicator found
Indicator
Evidence
Method

This exercise was repeated using the impact assessment frameworks of ESFRI and OECD. These approaches cover more explicitly the so-called scientific impact, of which some indicators, like Number of publications and Number of Citations, are also covered in the Human Resources area of the RI-PATHS approach.

A summary of RI-PATHS’ indicator types produced by “Building BioData.pt” (Table 3) shows that the different activities of the project, “Research Communities”, “Support to Research Communities” and “Industry and Entrepreneurship”, encompassing its 10 working groups had impact in all four RI-PATHS areas, namely, Human Resources, Economic and Innovation, Social/Societal and Policy, the working groups that provide “Support to Research Communities” having the broader socio-economic impact.

Table 3. “Building BioData.pt” indicators found in the RI-PATHS project indicators and impact areas.

A- activity; O- outcome; I- impact; Tick – indicator or proxy found; n/a – not applicable. WG (Working Group) 1 – Plants, WG2 – Marine Resources, WG3 – Systems biology, WG4 – Neurosciences, WG5 – Yeastract, WG6 – Common Infrastructure, WG7 – Training, WG8 – Industry & Entrepreneurship, WG9 – Bioinformatics Support and WG10 – Project Management & Dissemination.

Impact areaIndicator typeBioData.pt Infrastructure ObjectivesStrengthening research, technological development and innovationEnhancing research knowledge transfer from academy to industry
BioData.pt Project Working GroupsResearch Communities (WG1, 2, 3, 4, 5)Support to Research Communities (WG6, 7, 9, 10)Industry & Entrepreneurship (WG8)
Human ResourcesANumber of publicationsn/an/a
ANumber of events organized by RI (nr. participants)n/an/a
ANumber of researchers working in improved research infrastructuresn/an/a
ANumber of long-term higher education training programmesn/an/a
OSatisfaction of people trainedn/an/a
OCitations for publicationsn/an/a
IIncreased prestige as training facilityn/an/a
IImprovement of HRSTn/an/a
Economic and innovationANumber of computing applications developedn/an/a
AResearch results fed into shared datasets/repositoriesn/a
ANumber of collaborations with industryn/an/a
OUptake of accessible datasets/instruments/tools outside RIn/a
OFirms using an RI technologyn/an/a
ICorporate efficiency gains through use/application of RI datan/an/a
Social/SocietalAPeople reached and engaged in outreach activitiesn/a
AVisitors on website and followers on social median/an/a
ANumber of scientific usersn/an/a
OSatisfaction of scientific usersn/an/a
OUse of open datan/an/a
IInclusion of topics in schools and academic curriculan/an/a
PolicyAPresence of RI in committeesn/an/a
AProvision of databases and experts in support of public policyn/an/a
OSuccess rate of funding grantsn/an/a
IIncrease trust in sciencen/an/a
INotable changes in funding decisionsn/an/a

The indicators of “Building BioData.pt” identified in the ESFRI list corroborated the previous finding that the activities with broader impact were those dedicated to the “Support of Research Communities” (Table 4). The detailed information for this exercise is available for consultation.11 In addition, “Building BioData.pt” generated indicators for all ESFRI’s areas and covered all indicators except number 14 (Number of publicly available data sets used externally).

Table 4. Indicators of “Building BioData.pt” found in the ESFRI list of indicators and impact areas.

Tick – indicator or proxy found; n/a – not applicable. WG (Working Group) 1 – Plants, WG2 – Marine Resources, WG3 – Systems biology, WG4 – Neurosciences, WG5 – Yeastract, WG6 – Common Infrastructure, WG7 – Training, WG8 – Industry & Entrepreneurship, WG9 – Bioinformatics Support and WG10 – Project Management & Dissemination.

Impact areaBioData.pt Infrastructure ObjectivesStrengthening research, technological development and innovationEnhancing research knowledge transfer from academy to industry
BioData.pt Project Working GroupsResearch Communities (WG1, 2, 3, 4, 5)Support to Research Communities (WG6, 7, 9, 10)Industry & Entrepreneurship (WG8)
Achieving scientific excellence1. Number of user requests for accessn/an/a
2. Number of users servedn/a
3. Number of publicationsn/an/a
4. Percentage of top (10%) cited publicationsn/an/a
Delivery of education and training5. Number of MSc and PhD students using the RIn/an/a
6. Training of people who are not RI staffn/a
Enhancing collaboration in Europe7. Number of Members of the RI from ESFRI countriesn/an/a
8. Share of users and publications per ESFRI member countryn/an/a
Facilitating economic activities9. Share of users associated with industry and publications with industryn/an/a
10. Income from commercial activities and the number of entities paying for servicen/an/a
Outreach to the public11. Engagement achieved by direct contact
12. Outreach through median/an/a
13. Outreach via the RI’s own web and social median/an/a
Provision of scientific advice15. Participation by RIs in policy related activitiesn/an/a
16. Citations in policy related publicationsn/an/a
Facilitating international co-operation17. Share of users and publications per non-ESFRI member countryn/an/a
18. International traineesn/an/a
19. Number of members of the RI from non-ESFRI countriesn/an/a
Optimising management20. Revenuesn/an/a
21. Extent of resources made availablen/an/a

The analysis of “Building BioData.pt” indicators using the OECD framework (Table 5) also corroborated the broad impact of the project, by retrieving indicators for all impact areas. In this case, the scientific impact produced by the activities of “Research Communities” assumes particular relevance. Nonetheless, as for the previous frameworks, the activities related to “Support to Research Communities” have a wider impact. The full dataset of this analysis can be consulted.11

Table 5. “Building BioData.pt” indicators found in the OECD list of indicators and impact areas.

Tick - indicator or proxy found; n/a - not applicable. WG (Working Group) 1 - Plants, WG2 - Marine Resources, WG3 - Systems biology, WG4 - Neurosciences, WG5 - Yeastract, WG6 - Common Infrastructure, WG7 - Training, WG8 - Industry & Entrepreneurship, WG9 - Bioinformatics Support and WG10 - Project Management & Dissemination.

Impact areaBioData.pt Infrastructure ObjectivesStrengthening research, technological development and innovationEnhancing research knowledge transfer from academy to industry
BioData.pt Project Working GroupsResearch Communities (WG1, 2, 3, 4, 5)Support to Research Communities (WG6, 7, 9, 10)Industry & Entrepreneurship (WG8)
Scientific impactS1 - Number of publicationsn/an/a
S2 - Number of citationsn/an/a
S3 - Number of publications in High-Impact factor journalsn/an/a
S4 - Number of projects grantedn/an/a
S6 - Number of scientific usersn/a
S7 - User satisfactionn/an/a
S8 - User project excellencen/an/a
S9 - Collaboration excellence (scientific)n/an/a
S10 - Structuring effects of the RI on the scientific communityn/a
S11 - Papers co-authored with regional universitiesn/an/a
S12 - Use and production of open datan/an/a
S13 - Data opennessn/a
Technological impactT15 - National grants
T16 - Collaboration with national industryn/a
T21 - Joint technology development projects between RI and industryn/an/a
T24 - Collaborative projects with regional industrial partnersn/an/a
T27 - Data Sharingn/an/a
T29 - Data usagen/an/a
Economic impactE34 - Number of full time equivalent within the RIn/an/a
E36 - Number of employeesn/an/a
Training and Education impactH38 - Trained students satisfactionn/an/a
H39 - Use of the data for trainingn/an/a
H40 - Number of graduates (regional)n/an/a
H43 - Students trained and distributionn/an/a
H44 - Training programmes for high level studentsn/an/a
H45 - Educational and outreach activities
Social and Societal impactO47 - Production of resources in support of public policiesn/an/a
O50 - Public awarenessn/an/a
O52 - Popularity of the RI (public and users)n/an/a
O53 - Knowledge sharingn/a
O54 - Openness to publicn/a

The indicators generated by “Industry and Entrepreneurship” activities could find matches or proxies in the lists of the three impact assessment approaches, with greater emphasis, as expected, in the Economic and Innovation impact areas, enriching the project with a translational dimension.

Overall, this analysis showed that the activities carried out to accomplish the “Building BioData.pt” overarching objectives of “Strengthening research, technological development and innovation” and “Enhancing research knowledge transfer from academy to industry” covered the broad range of impact areas foreseen for European Research Infrastructures. This not only puts this RI of the National Roadmap aligned with sibling international counterparts, but also suggests that BioData.pt is well aligned with ELIXIR, bringing to the national scientific system the state-of-the-art topics of computing, bioinformatics and data management, addressed by this ESFRI Landmark.

Finally, the relevance of the retrieved indicators was ascertained, considering the national context and the global environment of the BioData.pt mission. Arbitrary units (A.U.) were attributed to the alignment of each indicator with the objectives/goals of the BioData.pt (4.5 A.U.), ELIXIR (2 A.U.), National Roadmap of Research Infrastructures (2 A.U.), EOSC (1 A.U.) and the Sustainable Development Goals - SDG (0.5 A.U.), and each “Building BioData.pt” indicator was analysed with respect to its potential contribution to the objectives of these organisations/initiatives. In general, a relevant indicator for evaluating BioData.pt performance and impact needs to achieve the value of 6.5 A.U., thus embedding at least two parameters, the objectives of BioData.pt (4.5 A.U.) and either those of ELIXIR (2 A.U.) or the ones of the National Roadmap of Research Infrastructures (2 A.U.), organisations to which BioData.pt is bound by a formal relationship. Additional relevance of BioData.pt activities was observed by assessing their potential contribution to the EOSC (1 A.U.) and/or the SDG (0.5 A.U.) goals (Figure 3). The full dataset of this analysis can be consulted.12

d11306cf-ee40-457d-9f45-796074e46e4d_figure3.gif

Figure 3. Relevance of “Building BioData.pt” indicators identified in ESFRI (E), OECD (O) and RI-PATHS (R) impact assessment frameworks.

Arbitrary units (AU). Dashed line - threshold point.

Discussion

The RI-PATHS project listed 102 possible indicators to be considered when planning or carrying out performance and impact evaluation of RIs from different scientific areas (Health & Food, Data, Computing and Digital Research, Energy, Environment, Physical Sciences & Engineering, and Social & Cultural Innovation), and types (distributed or single-sited). RI-PATHS also proposes a set of pathways tailored to assess the socio-economic impact of specific project activities, encompassing smaller subgroups of indicators. For instance, pathways 5 - Learning and training by using RI facilities and services, 9 - Provision of specifically curated/edited data, and 11 - Creating and shaping scientific networks and communities seem better suited to evaluate the impact of BioData.pt training activities (e.g., “Ready for BioData Management?”), the CorkOak DB portal,13 and the “building and consolidation of our Communities and Platforms, in a multidisciplinary network to identify gaps in computing data management and bioinformatics for the life sciences and build solutions”.

From the referred universe of 102 RI-PATHS indicators, 25 were identified among those monitored during “Building BioData.pt”, which scatter in all impact areas, suggesting the broad socio-economic impact of BioData.pt. When selecting RI-PATHS pathways more appropriate to assess BioData.pt activities, the indicator retrieval ratio increases to ~50% of the corresponding indicators subgroup. This corroborates that the performance and impact indicators used to evaluate a specific project or activity need to be tailored to several parameters, namely the nature of the activity under assessment, e.g. a training program, a community, a data portal, and also a particular context such as a national RI, or a specific project, e.g., with a wider scope that covered simultaneously Enabling Science, Problem-Solving, and Science and Society, as in the case of the establishment of a national RI or to a particular activity with a narrower scope, in addition to the scientific domain or the entrepreneurial nature of such RI or activity.

Of the 21 indicators compiled by the ESFRI framework, 20 were monitored by “Building BioData.pt”. The missing indicator, Number of publicly available data sets used externally, relates to the optimisation of data use and is a relevant indicator for a RI like BioData.pt. Although BioData.pt has publicly available datasets (e.g., Pheno and CorkOakDB13), it does not currently maintain indicators to demonstrate how these are being used externally. This difficulty also intricates with the fact that there is still a long way to go in the formal acknowledgement of RI services by its users, which is harder when the goods provided are intangible and sometimes provided by third parties. In the future, this topic should be addressed by putting in place a tracking system. The ESFRI framework, currently with a very broad scope for each indicator, is more prone to embed the specificities of national RIs.

Finally, out of the 58 indicators compiled by the OECD framework, 32 were monitored by “Building BioData.pt”, 18 belonging to Scientific Impact and Training and Education, emphasizing the importance of these areas for BioData.pt. In this framework, there is a large collection of patent and industry related indicators that, for the time being, are not part of BioData.pt objectives. There is also a set of indicators proposed by OECD related to the European geography, that could be adapted to the national landscape (e.g. T24 – Regional firms funding RI).

It is noteworthy to remember that this exercise did not benefit from an ex-ante impact evaluation and therefore the indicators maintained were not previously selected to monitor future socio-economic impact but the accomplishment of the funders’ requirements (Portugal 2020 program and Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia). Nonetheless, the three frameworks considered in this study were comprehensive enough to accommodate all indicators maintained during “Building BioData.pt”, in spite of the funding instruments, specific national context, nature of RI activities and role as a national node of a European RI.14 In addition, absent indicators may also prove useful to bring our attention to untracked activities that are relevant to the RI mission of an established national RI. One example is the long-term tracking of human resources in the RI, namely trainees, and scientific and managerial staff, their stays in the RI and their careers after leaving. The mechanism for such tracking is not trivial for a distributed organisation. Another example could be the already mentioned adaptation of indicators to monitor regional collaborations/networks and projects, or suppliers, and expenditure and income to the national scale. In the particular case of BioData.pt, which is now a legal entity, monitoring the number of its associates and the ability to capture users paid by the national funders, via time or service vouchers, would enable to assess the contribution of these activities to the RI sustainability.

The vast majority of the ESFRI, OECD and RI-PATHS indicators identified in “Building BioData.pt” surpassed the 6.5 A.U. in our scoring exercise, indicating that, this project was well aligned with current thinking around the performance and impact of RIs. This also reflects the natural integration of BioData.pt in the European and Portuguese research landscape. Furthermore, alignment with the EOSC goals was also very frequently observed underlining the commitment of BioData.pt with the best practices of FAIR data management and open science. It was interesting to observe the overlap between BioData.pt and the SDGs, suggesting that national RIs, as likely their European counterparts, can give a valuable contribution to global sustainable development, and are thus a public good. Below the threshold, three indicators contributing to the strategic objectives of the BioData.pt infrastructure were identified that did not promote the ELIXIR priorities or those of the National RoadMap of Research Infrastructures. These were: Number of employees, Income from commercial activities and number of entities paying for service, and Visitors on website and followers on social media/Outreach via the RI’s own web and social media. Although these indicators are not directly related to the mission of BioData.pt, they may assume a very relevant role for its long-term sustainability and thus, perhaps both the National Roadmap for Research Infrastructures and ELIXIR would like to consider this information when revising their priorities.

The process of collecting and categorising the indicators was well received by the project managers, who after a learning curve to apprehend the context and content of the new process, gained the understanding of the importance of evaluating the performance and impact of research infrastructure activities and the range of this potential impact. In detail, the project managers continuously collected and maintained the indicators generated by BioData.pt teams, which were reported annually to demonstrate the progress of the project. The participatory approach used to categorise the indicators, the B-MEM, allowed a wider participation of the infrastructure management staff in the conversion of a set of indicators in an impact analysis. The latter also enhanced the motivation and commitment of the managerial staff with the mission of BioData.pt. In a future opportunity, this process could be widen to the research/technical teams, enabling them to consider ex-ante the potential changes their activities will foster, and gather their contribution to the definition and collection of indicators. The wider vision gained by these teams is expected to create greater receptivity for the necessary indicator collection task, and also enhance their enthusiasm with their projects.

Final remarks

The monitoring of RIs performance and impact through indicators can be powerful in strategic management not only for continuous monitoring but also to inform future steps at the level of funders, optimization of processes and visibility by users and citizens.15,16 Although highly qualified consultants are available to provide such service, national RIs are typically underfunded, and cannot support the cost. It is thus critical to establish simple and participatory methods to be implemented by the RI staff with oversight from the management team.

From this study, it is clear that the approaches developed by ESFRI, OECD and RI-PATHS are very useful and adaptable to the national context. It is also clear that special attention should be given to the national and thematic context of the activities under assessment. It is, thus, critical that each RI maintains the indicators that are more suitable to demonstrate the impact of its activities.

Overall, there is a strong alignment of “Building BioData.pt” with the mission of a research infrastructure as foreseen by ESFRI. The major flaw recognised under this study, respecting the difficulty to control external use and acknowledgement of RI assets, such us datasets, may need a collective solution to be addressed in the future.

This exercise was done backwards to provide lessons for the future, where ex ante the areas where impact aims to be achieved, the different types indicators for each activity to be collected, as well as the methods for capturing the indicators should be documented.

In this scope, the methodology used to assess the relevance of the indicators maintained during “Building BioData.pt” (Figure 3) can be useful to adapt the selection of indicators to a specific context, taking into account the mission and goals of the RI, and also those of national and international organizations and global initiatives composing the landscape where the RI develops its work and aims to have impact. To successfully assess performance and impact of RIs it is also very important to set up processes where the staff should be involved already from the planning stage, such as the BioData.pt monitoring and evaluation matrix (Figure 2). Such methodology permits the involvement of managerial and research/technical staff and incorporates both perspectives. Moreover, RI staff gains a wider view of the organisation and feels more committed with its success and motivated to contribute in the collection of the indicators in the long-term.

Data availability

Underlying data

Zenodo: Mapping Building BioData.pt Indicators against the performance and impact assessment frameworks for research infrastructures of OECD, ESFRI and RI-PATHS project, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5828310.11

Zenodo: Relevance of “Building BioData.pt” indicators identified in ESFRI (E), OECD (O) and RI-PATHS (R) impact assessment frameworks, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5828295.12

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2022
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Melo AMP, Oliveira S, Oliveira JS et al. Making European performance and impact assessment frameworks for research infrastructures glocal [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11(ELIXIR):278 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.108804.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 02 Aug 2022
Revised
Views
20
Cite
Reviewer Report 11 Aug 2022
Enrico Guarini, Department of Business and Law, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy 
Marialuisa Lavitrano, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy;  BBMRI-ERIC (Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure), Graz, Austria;  EOSC (European Open Science Cloud Association), Brussels, Belgium 
Approved
VIEWS 20
The authors have adequately addressed all the issues that had been raised in our review report. The result is an interesting paper on a very relevant topic for the management of research infrastructures. We have no more comments, and we ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Guarini E and Lavitrano M. Reviewer Report For: Making European performance and impact assessment frameworks for research infrastructures glocal [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11(ELIXIR):278 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136830.r146238)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2022
Views
40
Cite
Reviewer Report 06 Apr 2022
Enrico Guarini, Department of Business and Law, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy 
Marialuisa Lavitrano, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy;  BBMRI-ERIC (Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure), Graz, Austria;  EOSC (European Open Science Cloud Association), Brussels, Belgium 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 40
This paper examines how the international frameworks developed for the monitoring and evaluation of performance and impact of research infrastructures (RIs) can be adopted by national RIs to support its management. This is done by presenting the results of a ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Guarini E and Lavitrano M. Reviewer Report For: Making European performance and impact assessment frameworks for research infrastructures glocal [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11(ELIXIR):278 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.120233.r126307)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 02 Aug 2022
    Ana Melo, BioData.pt - Portuguese Infrastructure of Biological Data, Oeiras, Portugal
    02 Aug 2022
    Author Response
    Dear Drs Lavitrano and Guarini,

    The authors have read thoroughly read your appreciation of this article and proceeded to the necessary modifications. We are very grateful for your analysis ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 02 Aug 2022
    Ana Melo, BioData.pt - Portuguese Infrastructure of Biological Data, Oeiras, Portugal
    02 Aug 2022
    Author Response
    Dear Drs Lavitrano and Guarini,

    The authors have read thoroughly read your appreciation of this article and proceeded to the necessary modifications. We are very grateful for your analysis ... Continue reading
Views
38
Cite
Reviewer Report 29 Mar 2022
Eugénio Campos Ferreira, CEB–Centre of Biological Engineering, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal;  LABBELS - Associate Laboratory, Guimarães, Portugal 
Approved
VIEWS 38
An interesting opinion article on the performance and impact of the Biodata.pt, the Portuguese node of the ESFRI landmark ELIXIR, the European Research Infrastructure for life science. A significant coverage of indicators was compiled based on 3 frameworks: 20 out ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Campos Ferreira E. Reviewer Report For: Making European performance and impact assessment frameworks for research infrastructures glocal [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11(ELIXIR):278 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.120233.r126306)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 02 Aug 2022
    Ana Melo, BioData.pt - Portuguese Infrastructure of Biological Data, Oeiras, Portugal
    02 Aug 2022
    Author Response
    Dear Dr Ferreira, 

    Thank you for reading our article and making suggestions that contributed to its improvement.
    The measures taken to address your concerns are described below your points: ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 02 Aug 2022
    Ana Melo, BioData.pt - Portuguese Infrastructure of Biological Data, Oeiras, Portugal
    02 Aug 2022
    Author Response
    Dear Dr Ferreira, 

    Thank you for reading our article and making suggestions that contributed to its improvement.
    The measures taken to address your concerns are described below your points: ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2022
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.