Evaluation of the impact of the most recent €10-million Europlanet project funded by the European Commission (EC) has been featured as a case study in the journal Nature Astronomy, published today.

The Europlanet 2024 Research Infrastructure (RI) project, which ran between 1 February 2020 and 31 July 2024, provided access to the world’s largest coordinated collection of planetary simulation and analysis facilities, virtual access to data services and tools, funding for upgrades to facilities and programmes, and a range of activities to support the community though networking, training, professional development and access to a telescope network. The project, which involved over 50 partners, was one of the most complex distributed research infrastructures ever funded by the EC.

From proposal stage, an Impact Evaluation Officer – the social scientist Jen DeWitt – was recruited and embedded in the project to delve into and document its results, outcomes and longer-term impacts.

The comment piece in Nature Astronomy highlights how having robust evaluation built into a project from the beginning leads to high-impact science and an outwards looking ethos that benefits the whole planetary community. Key findings from the evaluation also show that the networking and personal contacts associated with participation in the project’s activities, particularly the Transnational Access visits to laboratories and field sites, lead to better science, new avenues of research and long-lasting collaborations that would not have otherwise occurred.

“It’s never a straightforward pipeline between funding going in and good science coming out. Many things happen in the middle, and it’s important to understand what those factors are and how they affect the quality and longer-term impacts of the science itself, as well as the researchers doing the work and the wider communities around them,” explained DeWitt. “For students and early-career researchers starting out, these impacts are particularly important as they provide opportunities that would otherwise not be available to them and accelerate their careers.”

The evaluation of Europlanet 2024 RI was structured around five impact areas defined in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reference framework for evaluating research infrastructures, including scientific, technological, training and education, economic and societal impacts. Together with the project management team and activity leads, DeWitt defined key performance indicators that were mapped onto strategic objectives within the impact areas, and these were regularly reviewed, refined and updated over the course of the project. As well as quantitative metrics, like numbers of users and publications, DeWitt also gathered qualitative feedback through open-ended questions in surveys and via interviews.

Nigel Mason, the Coordinator of Europlanet 2024 RI and its predecessor RI project said: “This project was the last in a series that have received €28 million funding over 20 years from the EC. Although we had collected the metrics required by the EC for all past projects, this time, we wanted a more in-depth understanding of the results and outcomes, in both the short and longer term. To do that, we needed to bring in someone with the right expertise to work with us right from the start.

“Having a dedicated evaluator who had the time and expertise to gather more in-depth feedback meant that we could see how interactions with users developed over time and how the different strands of the project came together and functioned as a whole to support the community.”

The evaluation – and the management of the project itself – was complicated by the world events of 2020-24, including the pandemic, wars in Ukraine and Ethiopia, and the associated financial and societal challenges. Many activities required temporary or permanent adaptations in response to lockdowns, travel restrictions, health issues and personnel changes. Some barriers to impact remained, particularly with respect to widening participation from parts of the community that are under-represented in planetary science, where face-to-face participation and hosting events locally have been shown to be particularly important.

Nonetheless, the evaluation showed impact in all areas monitored, particularly with respect to scientific and training. The project has resulted in over 250 publications and conference presentations to date, and the mentoring, expert exchanges, training programmes and summer schools were all highlighted as being particularly important for early careers and researchers from under-represented countries during the pandemic. Over 90% of Transnational Access visits have resulted in ongoing research collaborations, and two thirds of participants reported that they followed up new avenues of research as a result of their visit.

Understanding what did and did not work for users and how both users and project partners benefited over time were key to delivering a successful project and defining what should come next.

“This evaluation is not just important in explaining to the European Commission – and the public taxpayers – about how their money has been spent and why the results have been beneficial to science and society. It has also had a vital practical use in helping us to identify where we should prioritise limited resources going forwards,” said Europlanet Vice-President, Anita Heward. “Europlanet is now a self-sustaining non-profit association and, if we are to continue to support the planetary community, we need to know where Europlanet’s activities have the biggest impact and best value for money. The evaluation has helped us do this in a robust, evidence-driven way.”

The importance of collaboration and networking in delivering high-impact planetary science was a key finding, with the evaluation helping to identify exactly how and why they are important.

“These results show that the popular stereotypes of scientists as lone geniuses working in isolation are diametrically opposite to how good science happens in practice. Success in research comes through building networks, talking, listening, learning and collaborating with colleagues – especially when it happens at an international and cross-border level. When we are talking to the next generation about careers in science, or to policy makers, the strength and importance of community is something that we should highlight and