Search
 

Introduction

ERA Rating Scale

ERA utilises a five-point rating scale. The rating scale is broadly consistent with the approach taken in research evaluation processes in other countries to allow for international comparison.

Rating

Descriptor

5

The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of outstanding performance well above world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.

4

The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of performance above world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.

3

The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of average performance at world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.

2

The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of performance below world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.

1

The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of performance well below world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.

n/a

Not assessed due to low volume. The number of research outputs does not meet the volume threshold standard for evaluation in ERA.

Notes on the Rating Scale

  • ‘World Standard’ refers to a quality standard. It does not refer to the nature or geographical scope of particular subjects, or to the locus of research nor its place of dissemination.
  • Each point within the rating scale represents a quality ‘band’. For example, one UoE might be rated highly within the ‘4’ band and another rated lower within the same band, but the rating for both will be a ‘4’. Only whole ratings are given (not 4.2, 4.5 etc).
  • The ‘banding’ of quality ratings assists RECs in determining a final rating. If, for example, a Unit of Evaluation has a preliminary rating at the top margin of the ‘4’ band based on the assessment of the quality of the research outputs, other indicators (e.g. income or esteem measures) may be sufficient to raise the rating into the ‘5’ band. The lack of such indicators will not, however, be used to lower a rating.
  • The ERA evaluation measures research quality, not scale or productivity. Volume information is presented to the RECs for the purposes of providing context to the research.
  • The methodology and rating scale allow for UoEs with different volumes of output to achieve the same rating. So, for example, a UoE with a small number of outputs can achieve a rating of 5 where the UoE meets the standard for that rating point, similar to a UoE with a large number of outputs.
  • Each UoE is assessed against the absolute standards of the rating scale, not against other UoEs. One of the key objectives of ERA is to identify excellence across the full spectrum of research performance.
  • RECs exercise their knowledge, judgment and expertise to reach a single rating for each UoE. In reaching a rating, RECs take account of all of the supporting evidence which is submitted for the UoE. RECs do not make comment about the contributions of individual researchers.
  • The rating for each UoE reflects the REC’s expert and informed view of the characteristics of the UoE as a whole. In all cases the quality judgments relate to all of the evidence, including the entire indicator suite, and the ERA rating scale. In order to achieve a rating at a particular point on the scale, the majority of the output from the UoE will normally be expected to meet the standard for that rating point. Experience has demonstrated that there is normally a variety of quality within a UoE.

Further details concerning the ERA evaluation process can be found in the ERA 2015 Evaluation Handbook.