  The starting point of this paper is a desktop research assessment model that
does not take properly into account the complexities of research assessment,
but rather bases itself on a series of highly simplifying, questionable
assumptions related to the availability, validity and evaluative significance
of research performance indicators, and to funding policy criteria. The paper
presents a critique of this model, and proposes alternative assessment
approaches, based on an explicit evaluative framework, focusing on
preconditions to performance or communication effectiveness rather than on
performance itself, combining metrics and expert knowledge, and using metrics
primarily to set minimum standards. Giving special attention to early career
scientists in emerging research groups, the paper discusses the limits of
classical bibliometric indicators and altmetrics. It proposes alternative
funding formula of research institutions aimed to support emerging research
groups.
