The self-evaluation starts with a brief presentation of the RG. Main characteristics, important organisational features or changes over the past years are presented.

The RG describes its mission and the main strategic aims of the past 5 years. This description regards its contribution to the body of scientific knowledge, as well as its contribution to society. The strategic aims depend on the context of the RG, such as its discipline, its institutional context, or the recommendations of the previous assessment committee (if any). Relevant contextual information and developments should be mentioned since these aspects influence the strategic aims of the RG.

One or more of the specific aspects, 1) Interdisciplinarity, 2), Open Science, 3) PhD Policy and Training, 4) Academic Culture, and 5) Human Resources Policy, can be part of the strategic aims.

The RG then describes what it has done to achieve the strategic aims. This description relates to choices, activities, intended partners or audiences, collaborations, etc.

One or more of the specific aspects, 1) Interdisciplinarity, 2) Open Science, 3) PhD Policy and Training, 4) Academic Culture, and 5) Human Resources Policy, can be part of the strategic process.

The RG presents and explains the factual evidence. Where appropriate, the RG can use quantitative indicators. It introduces and explains the selected indicators for products, uses and recognition marks for both quality domains (research quality and relevance to society). The choice of indicators depends on the aims and strategy of the RG and common practice in particular disciplines. If the RG decides not to use a standard indicator, it should provide a good argumentation. The RG should consider that the Journal Impact Factor cannot be used as a surrogate measure of the quality of research. Also, individual bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index, cannot be used as qualitative indicators of research quality.

We include a list of potential indicators for the self-evaluation report to facilitate this task (see Appendix B).
Finally, some tables may be included in all self-evaluation reports (or their appendices), with quantitative information, for instance, on funding. The exact shape of these tables may vary as long as they present the data clearly and orderly. Again, sample tables are provided in Appendix B, though changes are possible according to the criteria of the RG.

Group's name
Research fields
Keywords

Ph.D. holders and position (Group Leader, Full-time postdoctoral researchers, staff scientists, University lecturers and professors)
Ph.D. candidates (full-time / part-time)
Project managers
Technical support
Other (specify)

Indexed journal articles (please include indexing indicators and the number of citations)
Non-indexed journal articles (please include the number of citations)
Indexed conference papers (please include indexing indicators and the number of citations)
Non-indexed conference papers (please include the number of citations)
Total indexed articles
Total non-indexed articles
Total papers in open access (either in the journal itself or in repositories)
Other conference contributions
Books (authored, edited)
Book chapters
Defended Ph.D. theses
Research or policy reports
Other (specify)

Patents in exploitation and revenues
Patents (proposed, submitted, granted)

International proposals (funded and not funded)
Spanish proposals (funded and not funded)
Catalan proposals (funded and not funded)
Internal (UOC) funding
Contracts and agreements
Other (specify)

Competitive external postdoctoral grants
Competitive external predoctoral grants
Competitive internal (UOC) postdoctoral grants
Competitive internal (UOC) predoctoral grants
Other talent attraction/retention grants (specify)

External funding
Internal funding
Total funding

Prizes and distinctions to research quality or impact
Open data sets
Free/open-source software
Organized conferences (hosted, program committee, organizing committee, …)
Edited special issues
Editorial boards
Other (specify)

RG describes its results in the past 5 years (or from the last evaluation). Again, this description should be in a narrative shape, supported with appropriate evidence (in the shape of figures, in a table or figure). Specific examples of case studies are strongly encouraged to illustrate these achievements. This process allows the assessment committee to understand the achievements and results concerning the strategy. The results relate to research quality and social relevance and include a reflection on the teaching-research nexus, where applicable. The narrative can be substantiated by indicators and by referring to the case studies.

Accomplishments should include results on the specific aspects, 1) Interdisciplinarity, 2) Open Science, 3) PhD Policy and Training, 4) Academic Culture, and 5) Human Resources Policy.

Finally, the RG reflects on the strategy needed for the future. The unit may present a SWOT analysis, which overviews the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for the next 4-5 years. The strengths and weaknesses relate to the properties and characteristics of the RG. The opportunities and threats relate to scientific, social, or other external developments.

The RG is expected to discuss the research plan (challenges, topics, lines) for the next few years and the viability and sustainability of the group. This item must not be related to funding only, although a discussion about the funding issues should be included. The discussion about funding is expected to be related to the overall strategy of the group and not to be considered as an isolated indicator.

The strategy for the next 4-5 years must also include the specific aspects: 1) Interdisciplinarity, 2) Open Science, 3) PhD Policy and Training, 4) Academic Culture, and 5) Human Resources Policy.

The self-evaluation document is complemented with a one-page summary.

The appendices may include tables with figures on composition, funding, and case studies.