For the first time, national and international experts from outside the institution itself have evaluated the research carried out at the University. This is quite unusual in the Catalan university system and within the Spanish State and has had the support of the Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency (AQU Catalunya).

Despite being a common practice in neighbouring countries, such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany or Sweden, it had ever done before at any institution in the State. The purpose of the evaluation process, in addition to detecting the strengths and the weaknesses of departments at UPF to improve future results at international level, is  to become an instrument capable of measuring the results of research of the Catalan university system.

In the specific case of UPF, the desired impact of the evaluation process is to accomplish the following goals: i) to design proactive lines of scientific and technological policy; ii) to analyse the policy of support for the research of the University; iii) to contribute to the more efficient management of the resources devoted to support for research, as well as prioritize the use of these resources; iv) to detect the strengths and the weaknesses in the scientific track record of each department; v) to identify strategic areas and potentialities for strengthening; vi) to improve the conditions for UPF lecturers to pursue their research; vii) to provide a platform of transparency to be accountable to society; viii) to change the system of university financing in relation to the results obtained in research evaluation processes.

The strategic objective of the evaluations, which it is proposed should be carried out every five years, is to strengthen the University as an international, high-level research organization so that it is perceived as generating knowledge, not just as a tool for transmission. The process of evaluating research aims to provide ourselves with information about the position of UPF and its departments in relation to other comparable universities at home and abroad.

How was the process carried out?

The procedure, which took ten months, brought a total of 34 experts of renown in their fields to UPF to hold interviews with the heads of each department and get access to all of the information they deemed necessary in order to issue their final report.

Following the methodology established by AQU Catalunya and the University, the eight departments of UPF produced a self-appraisal of the research results obtained in the last five years. The document hinged, among others, on such aspects as research policy, research activity and productivity and the internationalization of the departments.

Having drafted the self-appraisal, the members of the Research External Evaluation Committees (CAER) analysed it and visited the different departments to verify all the information received. They consisted of 4 or 5 members, from universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, Oxford University, Université Paris-Diderot or the Ludwig Maximilians Universität München.

Following their visit, the CAER issued the final evaluation reports following four established criteria (productivity, quality, relevance and vitality, and organizational capacity) and scoring the departments according to four levels: Excellent, Very good, Good or Insufficient.

What has been the impact of the evaluation process?

The result of the external evaluation process has been satisfactory for all the departments at UPF, all scoring  Excellent or Very good. The evaluation committees have especially recognized the effort made by the departments taking into account the current economic constraints that do not help to showcase all the University's potential.

In their reports, the CAER highlight the amount of funds raised through competitive calls for research proposals, domestic and international, that help maintain the University's very high standards of scientific quality. However, they emphasize that we must continue to work along these lines.

They also warn that funding difficulties affect the ability to maintain the most internationally renowned researchers and attract new young talent to contribute knowledge. For this reason, they advise focusing on attracting external talent to maintain UPF's international competitiveness. They warn that it is important to establish separate procurement processes with the aim of attracting the best talent, both nationally and internationally, and to avoid endogamy. In the field of administration, they underline that now is a good time for the departments to regroup, taking advantage of the general restructuring of the University.

In terms of research output, impact and transfer, the results are very good, with high research output, considering the size of the departments, and a really significant impact in terms of presence in the leading scientific journals. Among the most highly rated departments, one has been recognized as a  Severo Ochoa Centre of Excellence (Barcelona GSE, which houses the  Department of Economics and Business), and two have obtained a  Maria de Maetzu distinction for university departments (Department of Health and Life Sciences and  Department of Information and Communication Technologies).

Internationalization is one of the most highlighted aspects in all reports by the CAER and is the main axis around which UPF's capacity for improvement hinges. The evaluators consider there is a need to strengthen internationalization as a global concept, for example through the presence of large international consortia and networks. One highly valued point is the recognition obtained through international awards and mentions received by the various departments of the University, one differentiating aspect from the State university system and which positions UPF as a whole as a leading institution worldwide.

Finally, the CAER expressed their positive surprise at the vitality of the various departments and the research groups within them. But they found that, generally speaking, there is excessive fragmentation that leads to missing opportunities for joint work. Along these lines, they reinforce the idea of promoting reorganization into fewer but more powerful groups in each department to achieve greater impact.