The Star-Rating Rubric

This consolidated rubric provides a high-level summary of the standards used to judge research quality across all three pillars. Reviewers use these descriptors to ensure that every institutional score is benchmarked against national and international excellence.

Overview of the 1–4* Scale

The final score for any submission is a weighted average of the ratings assigned to each pillar based on the following quality levels:

Rating	Quality Level	Definition in Practice
4*	World-leading	Outstanding originality, rigour, and global significance; sets new agendas for the discipline.
3*	Internationally excellent	High quality and significant contribution; strong visibility and influence beyond the institution.
2*	Recognised internationally	Sound, competent research of recognised quality; moderate innovation.
1*	Nationally recognised	Basic quality meeting national standards; modest originality or rigour.
U	Unclassified	Below the minimum national threshold or contains insufficient evidence for a score.

Pillar-Specific Standards of Judgement

Pillar A: Research Outputs (60%)

Evaluated on Originality, Rigour, and Significance.

4*: Redefines paradigms; methodologically exemplary; published in world-leading journals or creative media.
3*: Presents new theoretical or methodological insights that extend existing work; strong influence beyond the institution.
2*: Well-structured studies with recognisable advancement; published in national journals or conference proceedings.
1*: Mostly descriptive or confirmatory work; limited conceptual innovation or restricted peer validation.

Pillar B: Research Environment (25%)

Evaluated on Strategic Leadership, Research Culture, and Infrastructure.

4*: Dynamic, inclusive, and sustainable ecosystem integrated with global networks; evidence of world-class mentoring and external funding success.
3*: Strong and coherent strategy linked to national priorities; active internal review processes and staff development.
2*: Developing environment with basic structures, policies, and mentorship in place.
1*: Fragmented support; weak strategy or minimal researcher development; missing mandatory KPIs.

Pillar C: Research Impact (15%)

Evaluated on Reach and Significance beyond academia.

4*: Exceptional reach and significance; clear transformative outcomes such as national policy adoption or systemic economic change.
3*: Very considerable impact on defined user groups or sectors; well-evidenced by independent evaluation or usage data.
2*: Considerable positive impact that is localised (regional or pilot-scale) or still emerging.
1*: Modest reach; early-stage impact supported only by indirect or anecdotal evidence.

Reviewer Guidance: The "Evidence-First" Rule

Best-Fit Rule: Reviewers select the star rating that best describes the overall profile of the evidence provided.
Verification: An output or impact claim cannot be rated above U if the supporting evidence is missing, broken (e.g., dead links), or not independent.
Aspiration vs. Outcome: In Environment and Impact pillars, scores are based on implemented initiatives and achieved changes, not future plans.