How to assess quality of research

Importantly, the way we assess individuals on their research output (for example for promotion purposes) differs from how the Faculty as an organization (with its sub-groups) can facilitate a high quality of its research output. In relation to assessing individuals, what is most relevant is the question of which standards can show high quality research output by individuals/teams and which indicators we use to illustrate these standards. This aspect was also raised by the Mak committee, which noted that individual directors of research units may not use the same standards when carrying out assessments, which may lead to inequality and uncertainty. They suggested to formulate more explicit assessment criteria of what is considered good research. Faculty policy is that this assessment is carried out in the context of Recognition and Rewards and therefore must allow for diversity in research focus and growth paths. We ask researchers to explain their ambitions and research agenda in the form of a narrative in the Personal Development Plan (Annex 6). This guides their development and allows them to explain the quality of their research output. The portfolio submitted to the Career Guidance Committee (Annex 7, Annex 8) for the purposes of promotion equally allows to explain research quality in a narrative form. The second type of assessment regards the Faculty as a whole. For that, our procedures, networks and opportunities to discuss and provide feedback on research (in development) are most relevant. 

A relatively recent addition to the question of how to assess research quality is the advent of GenAI tools that are used for research. The Faculty has published AI guidelines for academic legal writing in September 2025 particularly for students and PhD researchers (Annex 9). These are currently being developed further for use by all researchers, together with the AI advisory group (Annex 10). In these guidelines, we address how to ensure that the use of GenAI in legal research is in line with the principles of research integrity, which form the basis of sound academic research.
 

  b) Activities and discussion organized so far and preliminary results

The Faculty has organized several Faculty-wide meetings in which we discussed with each other what we consider “good” research and how we assess that. At the research meeting 9 May 2023, the Faculty reflected on the Mak committee’s recommendations. During the peer meeting for PhD supervisors February 2025, research festival June 2025 and the research meeting October 2025, we focussed on how to conduct good legal research from a methodological point of view, as one of the indicators for good research. With the research institutes and groups, discussions focussed on their structures and activities of fostering research quality (3 April 2023, 29 June 2023, 19 January 2026). The Science Committee proposed different activities in relation to research quality in action (8 June 2025, Annex 11), among others on the basis of a faculty survey. Such a survey has been carried out at the  end of 2025 on colleagues’ views on the criteria the Faculty of Law currently uses and should use to assess the quality of PhD research proposals.

A commonly shared understanding is that research quality is pluralistic and context-sensitive. The type of research we do is at its core legal, but it is characterized by a variety of sub-fields that emphasize diverse research questions, research methods and envisaged output. We highly value this diversity. Therefore, any clarification of what good research is and how we assess it needs to take this context-dependency into consideration. Another commonly held understanding is that we mainly rely on qualitative indicators to assess research quality; quantitative indicators are cautiously used. In particular, through narratives and key achievements, researchers and research groups show the high quality of their research. Our peer review structures in institutes facilitate the improvement of our research. 

On that basis, commonly accepted and followed standards, indicators and processes have been collected and discussed with the directors of research institutes and groups. We do not wish to present them as a list of required criteria, but rather to indicate examples of how individuals and groups can illustrate the quality of research output. The overview shows which standards, indicators and activities we commonly share, while each researcher and group is able, on the basis of these examples, to illustrate the quality of research output depending on the type of research, methods, sub-field and relating publication standards.

Another bottom-up activity has been carried out by the Science Committee in November/December 2025 in the form of two faculty surveys among full, associate and assistant professors on the one hand, and PhD candidates on the other hand (Annex 12). The focus of these surveys was the experience of respondents as to with criteria are currently used (by the Faculty selection committees, composed of members of the Science Committee and other Faculty colleagues) to assess PhD research proposals as to their quality and feasibility, and which criteria according to the respondents should be used. 

In particular, the outcome of what should be assessed by the selection committee further support the importance of the standards found in the overview above: the top four criteria that matter most to both groups are originality, contribution to the body of knowledge, scientific relevance and feasibility. Interestingly, both groups noted a difference in what should be assessed and what is actually assessed, namely research design and methods, feasibility, the (inter)national orientation and a match with the Faculty research programme. This outcome presents an important starting point for further discussion.

Our research institutes and groups have selected key research output (Annex 13) and achievements (Annex 14) that illustrate our commitment to high quality research. An overview of all our research output can be accessed via the research information system CRIS.

  c) Suggestions for discussion during mid-term review

For the mid-term review, the question is posed how a formal overall Faculty policy on assessing research quality should look like, which elements it should contain and which effects we want to avoid. An important question to discuss is in how far a list of standards and indicators is perceived as effective in fostering good research at our Faculty. While on the one hand, a list of standards of good research can provide clarity and avoid inequality, it may also limit the autonomy researchers and research groups feel as to what type of research they can carry out in which way and how they publish it. In essence, the question is raised whether an open list of standards and indicators made explicit in a Faculty policy can help researchers understand what the Faculty values, or whether a Faculty policy should mainly focus on the structures we have to support researchers in making independent choices.

Another point of attention seems to lie in the fact that assessing the standards we value as important for high research quality are not always easy to assess meaningfully, as illustrated by the outcome of the Science Committee’s survey on the assessment of PhD research proposals. This is particularly so if the assessment is not done by experts in the specific field but by a committee of legal scholars from different sub-fields. Their focus, as a consequence, will be less on originality, contribution to the field and scientific relevance, but more on methodology and research design, link with the Faculty research programme and feasibility. The discussion during the mid-term review could therefore focus on 1) what do we want the selection committee for PhD proposals to assess and in which form is that possible, and 2) when assessing research quality in different contexts, how do we guarantee a specialist view in order to assess criteria commonly shared as being of high importance. 

A further focus for the mid-term review could be which (if any) follow-on activities the faculty as a whole but also the Science Committee and research institutes and groups should (continue to) carry out to keep on talking about how to assess research quality. One suggestion by the Science Committee is to initiate a survey in which researchers of all levels of seniority choose one item of research output (publication, project, conference, presentation, data, etc.) and explain why it shows good research quality, and to then discuss this with each other in view of the next research assessment. Another suggestion is to connect the discussion on research quality with the advice provided by the Career Advice Committee (link) for the purposes of promotion. There is also a wish to discuss this topic further at a national level with other law faculties; ideas about the format of these discussions are welcome.

In terms of Faculty support for researchers to carry out high quality research, it would also be interesting to discuss during the mid-term whether any factors inhibit researchers from carrying out high quality research. These may be related to any other aspect of work, our research culture (solo versus team), the organization as a whole (research institutes, groups and departments), promotion paths (recognition and rewards) or anything else.