Metascience Sandpit: Scientometrics for Research Assessment (2026, Closed Historical Record)

This is a historical record of UK Research and Innovation’s 2026 Metascience sandpit on scientometrics for research assessment. UKRI now marks the opportunity Closed. It is not an open call, and there is no confirmed successor date or replacement round for this specific sandpit on the official listing.

The opportunity was designed as an intensive, collaborative route to research funding. Rather than asking people to submit a complete grant proposal before meeting one another, UKRI invited participants to a four-day sandpit. Participants would define problems, form teams, shape project ideas, and pitch the resulting projects during the event. The subject was the development, validation, and critique of novel scientometric indicators for research assessment and future metascience research.

The page recorded a total fund of £3,000,000. UKRI expected to fund up to that amount at 80% full economic cost across all research projects arising from the sandpit. The money was therefore a pool for the projects created through the process, not a single £3 million award to every participant or one automatic award to the person who submitted an expression of interest.

Status at a glance

The dates above describe the 2026 cycle. They should not be read as upcoming dates. The expression-of-interest deadline, the sandpit sessions, and the expected deadline for full proposals have all passed.

What the sandpit was intended to produce

The central problem was that research assessment depends on measures that can be incomplete, poorly validated, or easy to misinterpret. Citation counts and related indicators can be useful evidence, but they do not by themselves explain research quality, societal value, integrity, novelty, or contribution. A measure can also change behaviour when institutions or funders treat it as a target. UKRI’s description placed this tension at the heart of the sandpit.

The proposed work was broader than producing another score. UKRI wanted projects that could develop measures and indicators to a point where funders, policymakers, and other users could implement them. The official description highlighted the need for validation, theoretical reflection, and meaningful engagement with end users and the research community. That emphasis matters: a technically sophisticated indicator that has not been tested across fields, research types, or real assessment settings would not meet the full purpose of the call.

The page identified three areas where improved scientometric indicators could have practical value:

• evaluating research portfolios, including national assessment exercises, institutional analysis, and funder use;
• evaluating individual programmes or projects within public or private research institutions and funding organisations; and
• metascience itself, where there is no universally agreed set of measures for comparing research and policy interventions.

UKRI described the projects as 12-month research projects with actionable findings, including the development of new open-access indicators and measures. The intention was not open-ended exploration without a delivery point. Projects were expected to move useful measures toward implementation, while being candid about their limits and appropriate uses.

Potential topics included indicators related to novelty, disruption, interdisciplinarity, collaboration, quality, replicability, integrity, semantic relevance, links between research papers and patents or policy, and more refined classification of citations. These examples were directions for work, not a promise that every project would cover them. A strong project would have connected a real assessment need to a defensible measurement approach and a credible plan for testing whether the resulting signal was informative.

How the sandpit process worked

The sandpit brought together scientometric experts and participants with different institutional and disciplinary perspectives. UKRI described a sequence that began by defining the scope, including inclusion and exclusion criteria for indicator development. Participants then shared relevant expertise and stakeholder perspectives, worked on challenges using creative thinking methods, captured the output as research project proposals, and reached funding recommendations through real-time expert review.

Participants were not required to prepare a specific research plan before the event. Ideas for activities were to be developed collaboratively in the room. Projects created through the process would pitch for funding on the final day, and mentors would act as independent reviewers when making funding recommendations. Attendance itself did not guarantee UKRI funding; the official page expressly described the sandpit as potentially valuable even when funding was not secured.

Attendance was mandatory for the full event. The in-person component was scheduled for 15–16 April 2026 at UKRI Swindon, followed by remote sessions on 21 April 2026 and 23 April 2026. This format was intended to combine concentrated in-person team formation with online refinement and decision-making over the following week. Because those sessions have passed, the attendance commitment is now part of the historical record rather than an action for prospective applicants.

The UK Metascience Unit was to lead the sandpit with support from mentors. Mentors and a small number of stakeholders could help participants define and explore challenges, but they were not eligible to receive research funding. The expected cohort was up to 35 participants, with a maximum of ten non-UK-based attendees.

Historical eligibility

The opportunity was open to organisations with standard UKRI eligibility. The page also allowed applicants from UK business, third-sector, and government organisations, subject to the Economic and Social Research Council rules for inclusion of project co-leads from those organisation types. Such participants could join successful projects as project co-leads or project partners, but their organisations could not take over leadership of a funded project where they did not meet UKRI organisational eligibility requirements for a project lead. The page also noted that those organisations could claim only certain costs, depending on their type.

No more than 20% of participants were to come from business, third-sector, or government organisations. International applicants were permitted as well. International participants could contribute as international project co-leads, but could not take over as project lead; the page also set the maximum of ten non-UK-based attendees within the expected cohort.

UKRI encouraged applications from a diverse range of researchers and described support for people with caring responsibilities, career breaks, flexible working, alternative working patterns, and disability or accessibility needs. Those statements described the 2026 participation process. They do not create an open route to join the closed event now.

What the historical application required

The application route was an expression of interest through an online survey. UKRI said the survey would be used to assess an applicant’s expertise, skills, and motivation to participate. No further documentation would be accepted, and incomplete surveys would be rejected. Applicants also had to confirm that they could attend the entire sandpit if selected.

The selection criteria were suitability and fit to the sandpit process, relevant research expertise and experience, and the ability to work collaboratively and meet user needs at pace. UKRI said it would seek representation across disciplines, career paths, career stages, geographic distribution, and organisational diversity. It also asked applicants to explain how their expertise met the scope of the sandpit.

The practical preparation implied by those criteria was concise rather than a full proposal. A suitable historical expression of interest would have needed to make clear what methods, domain knowledge, assessment experience, stakeholder access, or critical perspective the applicant could contribute. It would also have needed to demonstrate genuine availability for all four sessions. A detailed project plan was not required because the point of the sandpit was to build the projects collaboratively after selection.

For UK-based participants at institutions eligible for UKRI funding, the page advised informing the university research office before submitting the expression of interest. UKRI also stated that it would cover accommodation, subsistence, and travel to the in-person days in line with its policy, while noting that some international travel would not be covered. These arrangements belonged to the event that took place in the 2026 cycle and should not be treated as a current reimbursement offer.

From sandpit ideas to full proposals

The intended post-sandpit route was conditional. Projects developed during the event would be assessed by expert review and recommended for funding. Participants involved in projects identified for funding were expected to be informed within two weeks of the sandpit. Successful teams would then submit a full proposal through the UKRI Funding Service, accurately representing the teams and projects assembled at the sandpit. Non-academic project partners could be added after the sandpit process, and funding would depend on receipt of a full proposal.

UKRI listed 3 June 2026 as the expected deadline for those full proposals. Since the opportunity is now closed and that date has passed, this page does not present full-proposal submission as an available next step. The official page also stated that projects should start no later than 1 September 2026 and be completed by 1 September 2027. Those dates describe the planned delivery window for projects from the 2026 event, not a new application timetable.

The 80% full economic cost rule was relevant at the project stage. For a UK institution eligible for UKRI funding, the institution would ordinarily need to fund the remaining 20% of full economic project costs. Any team reaching the full-proposal stage would have needed to involve its research office in the costing and submission process. The total fund remained a ceiling across the projects, not a guaranteed amount for each team.

Relationship to the separate Metascience grants round 2

UKRI’s page separately referred to Metascience research grants round 2, a curiosity-driven opportunity for applicant-led metascience research projects. It said that round welcomed applications in scientometrics as well as other areas of metascience. The page also made the distinction explicit: that round was separate from this targeted sandpit, which was designed to co-create interrelated projects around scientometrics for research assessment.

That separate reference should not be treated as a successor to this sandpit. This record does not claim that a new sandpit has been announced, does not substitute another deadline, and does not direct readers to apply through a different call. Anyone researching current UKRI funding should check UKRI’s live listings independently rather than assuming that the separate round preserves the same format, eligibility, funding pool, or subject focus.

Why this historical opportunity remains useful

Although no application can be made to the 2026 sandpit, the record can still help researchers understand a distinctive funding model. The event combined participant selection, collaborative problem definition, rapid project formation, and expert review. That structure rewarded people who could contribute methods and judgement while working with others under time pressure. It also made validation and user needs part of the project design from the beginning.

The subject remains relevant to anyone studying research assessment. A useful indicator must be tested against differences between disciplines, publication and citation practices, career stages, research types, and institutional contexts. It should be interpreted alongside expert judgement rather than presented as a complete verdict. Teams also need to consider data quality, transparency, reproducibility, gaming risks, and the effects a measure could have once organisations begin using it.

The historical page is especially clear that the work was meant to lead to usable findings. A project might investigate a new indicator, compare existing measures, test a method with assessors, or build open resources for responsible use. But the work would need to say what the measure can support, what it cannot support, how its performance would be checked, and how affected research communities would be involved.

Frequently asked questions

Can I still submit an expression of interest?

No. UKRI marks the opportunity Closed. The EOI closing date was 26 February 2026 at 4:00pm UK time, and this page is an archive of that cycle.

What happened at the sandpit?

The scheduled event comprised in-person sessions at UKRI Swindon on 15–16 April 2026 and remote sessions on 21 April 2026 and 23 April 2026. Attendance was intended to be mandatory for selected participants across all four sessions.

Was the £3 million a personal award?

No. UKRI described up to £3,000,000 at 80% full economic cost for all research projects arising from the sandpit. The amount was a total fund across the resulting project portfolio.

Did attending guarantee funding?

No. UKRI said attendance did not guarantee funding. Projects developed during the sandpit were to be assessed, and funding was conditional on successful teams submitting full proposals through the UKRI Funding Service.

Was a full research proposal required with the EOI?

No. The historical route was an expression-of-interest survey. UKRI said applicants were not required to develop specific research activity plans before the sandpit, and no further documentation would be accepted with the survey.

Is Metascience research grants round 2 the replacement for this call?

No. UKRI described it as a separate, curiosity-driven opportunity. It should not be presented as a successor to this targeted sandpit without a new official announcement.

Who should be contacted about the archived opportunity?

The official page listed [email protected] for questions about the specific funding opportunity. Because the event and its application deadlines have passed, enquiries should not be assumed to reopen the 2026 process or establish a future round.

Official source

The authoritative listing is the UKRI funding opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/metascience-sandpit-scientometrics-for-research-assessment/. It is the source for the Closed status, the £3,000,000 total fund, the historical dates, the eligibility conditions, the application route, and the planned post-sandpit process recorded here.