1. Task force Evaluation Metrics Report on activities Johanna Eder Stuttgart

2. Task Force members  Johanna Eder; Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart  [Henrik Enghoff; Natural History Museum of Denmark - University of Copenhagen]  John Jackson; Natural History Museum, London  Gaël Lancelot, EDIT office, NMHN Paris  Karol Marhold; Institute of Botany, Slovakian Academy of Sciences  Camille Pisani; Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences  Eric Smets, National Herbarium Netherlands, Bert Geerken, Naturalis

3. Objectives  European/EDIT standard evaluation metrics for institutions sharing a focus on taxonomy and collections  applicable both the institutional and individual (scientist) level  implementation into institutional evaluation/audit policy  offer standardized measure to external evaluation authorities

4. Summary of workflow  Task force meeting in Carvoeiro (December 2009): the full list of criteria used by institutions was presented (redundance/ specific criteria due to specificities of individual institutions)  EDIT Board of Directors (BoD 6) gave a mandate to the task force to develop a shortlist of criteria.  These criteria should focus on the specificities of Natural History institutions, and present a clear and broad categorization on the impact of taxonomic activity.  submit a MoU to the Board

5. Summary of workflow  Members of the task force each identified 10 to 15 criteria that seemed essential to them.  The chairwoman and secretary of the task force produced a synthesis of these criteria,  Approval of this synthesis by the task force.

6. Summary of workflow  A draft MoU was produced and approved by the task force.  This draft MoU was submitted to the MNHN legal department, which gave its assent to its submission to the EDIT BoD.  The MoU and its Annex (with the list of criteria itself) was added to the agenda of the 7th EDIT BoD (Annex 4 of the agenda).

7. Next actions required  Discussion in the BoD 7  Approval by the BoD  Decision of the BoD about the future of the task force (continue/resolve)

8. Memorandum of Understanding  Paragraph 4 ….. This evaluation is not intended to supersede any other method of evaluation which may be currently in use, but to provide an additional evaluation/audit that is suited to the specificities of taxonomy as a science. The list is not exhaustive and every institution is free to add other criteria to it.

9. Selected criteria for MoU Publications  Taxonomic Monograph, revision  Book, chapter in a book  Papers in peer-reviewed journals  % of papers in journals with impact factor Scientific Outreach  Scientific presentations/posters at international meetings/symposia  Invited lecture at international meetings/symposia  Expert opinions provided to stakeholders – number of science enquiries handled  Organisation, co-organisation of meetings & workshops, incl. learned societies events

10. Selected criteria for MoU Collections  Number of research loans handled  Curation of collections – time effort  Data entry and curation into a (taxonomic/collection-related) database Funding and projects  Coordination of a third-party funded project  Number and value of new grants awarded  Fieldwork and expeditions (time effort, incl. organisation)

11. Selected criteria for MoU Edition  Editing of proceedings or book with peer review  Chief editor of a journal with ISI impact factor or of an A journal of the ERIH lists  Chief editor of another scientific journal Public outreach  Scientific preparation of an exhibition  Presentations for the public  Publications for the public  Contributions to public media

12. Selected criteria for MoU Teaching  Lectures, practicals for university-level students and other levels (time effort)  Textbooks  Supervision of PhD, Master, Bachelor student or equivalent Prizes  Obtaining an international scientific prize