Direct comparison

Hong Kong Principles Vs Dora: Key Differences & Comparison | CASRAI

The Hong Kong Principles reward responsible research behaviours; DORA targets the misuse of journal metrics in assessment. Both reform research assessment but from complementary angles.

A side-by-side comparison of two research-administration standards

In summary

The Hong Kong Principles and DORA are both part of the movement to reform how researchers are assessed, but they approach it from different directions. DORA — the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2012) — is essentially a corrective: it calls on institutions, funders, and publishers to stop misusing journal-based metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor when evaluating individuals. The Hong Kong Principles (developed in 2019, published by Moher et al. in 2020) are positive and prescriptive about behaviour: five principles setting out the responsible research practices — transparency, open science, a broad range of activities — that assessment should actively reward. DORA tells you what to stop doing; the Hong Kong Principles tell you what to reward. They are complementary, and both connect to the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), which provides a vehicle for institutions to commit to reform.

Side-by-side comparison

Dimension	Hong Kong Principles	DORA
Focus	Rewarding responsible research behaviours	Ending the misuse of journal-based metrics
Origin	6th World Conference on Research Integrity, Hong Kong	A meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology
Year	2019 (published 2020)	2012
Structure	Five principles	A declaration with general and targeted recommendations
Asks institutions to	Reward transparency, open science, varied activities	Stop using the Journal Impact Factor to judge individuals
Scope	How researchers are assessed for integrity	How research outputs are evaluated and metrics used
Signatory model	Principles to adopt; not primarily a signatory list	Organisations and individuals sign the declaration
Complementarity	Says what to reward	Says what to stop doing
Relationship to CoARA	Aligns with CoARA's reform agenda	A foundational commitment many CoARA members share

Common questions

FAQ

Do the Hong Kong Principles replace DORA?+

No — they complement it. DORA focuses on stopping the misuse of journal metrics in assessment, while the Hong Kong Principles set out the positive research behaviours that assessment should reward. An institution can act on both at once.

What does each ask institutions to do differently?+

DORA mainly asks institutions to stop relying on metrics like the Journal Impact Factor when judging individuals. The Hong Kong Principles ask institutions to actively reward responsible practices — transparent reporting, open science, and a broad range of research activities.

How do both relate to CoARA?+

CoARA, the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, provides an agreement and community through which organisations commit to reform. Both DORA's critique of metrics and the Hong Kong Principles' emphasis on responsible behaviours align with CoARA's broader reform agenda.

Going deeper