DORA (2012) vs. CoARA (2022): Compared

DORA and CoARA are both research-assessment reform commitments, but they differ in origin, scope, and mechanism. DORA (2012) is a single pledge against using the Journal Impact Factor as a quality proxy, with 27,260 signatories in 174 countries. CoARA (2022) is an EU-originated, ten-commitment framework requiring member organizations to publish and report on an action plan.

DORA: the original commitment against journal-metric misuse (2012)

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) was drafted by a group of journal editors and publishers at the American Society for Cell Biology’s annual meeting on 16 December 2012, and publicly released in May 2013. Its target was narrow and specific: the misuse of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and other journal-level citation metrics as a stand-in for the quality of an individual article, researcher, or grant application.

DORA’s own text states its general recommendation plainly:

“Do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.”

That single sentence sits above 17 further recommendations, organized by audience: 2 for funding agencies, 2 for institutions, 5 for publishers, 4 for organizations that supply metrics, and 4 for researchers themselves — 18 in total. Signing is a public act of endorsement: an individual or organization registers on the DORA website and becomes a DORA signatory. DORA itself does not audit signatories for compliance — signing is a stated commitment, not a certified outcome, which is why two organizations can both be signatories while sitting at very different points in actually implementing the recommendation.

CoARA: a broader, EU-originated reform coalition (2022)

The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) grew out of a different process a decade later. Following a European Commission scoping report and a year of multi-stakeholder consultation, the European Commission, Science Europe, and the European University Association jointly facilitated the drafting of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, published 20 July 2022. The coalition itself formally launched at a Constitutive General Assembly on 1 December 2022, with roughly 320 founding organizations.

Where DORA is a single-sentence pledge about one specific practice, the CoARA Agreement is a ten-commitment framework covering the full research assessment system — not just metrics. The commitments include recognizing diverse contributions and career paths in research, basing assessment primarily on qualitative peer review supported by responsible quantitative indicators, avoiding institutional-ranking-based assessment, and committing real resources and timelines to reform. Commitment 3 speaks most directly to DORA’s original territory:

“Abandon inappropriate uses in research assessment of journal- and publication-based metrics, in particular inappropriate uses of Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and h-index.”

Signing the Agreement and joining CoARA are the same act, but membership carries an operational obligation DORA doesn’t have: each member organization must publish an action plan within twelve months of joining, describing concretely how it will implement the ten commitments, and report on progress periodically thereafter. That reporting cadence — not just the pledge — is the core mechanism difference from DORA.

How they differ: origin, scope, and mechanism

Dimension	DORA	CoARA
Origin	2012, drafted by journal editors/publishers at an ASCB meeting, San Francisco	2022, co-facilitated by the European Commission, Science Europe, and the European University Association
Founding document	A single declaration with 18 recommendations across 6 audience groups	The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment: 10 commitments covering the whole assessment system
Primary target	Misuse of journal-level metrics (JIF specifically) as a proxy for individual quality	Journal- and publication-based metrics (JIF, h-index) as one commitment among ten, alongside output diversity, career recognition, rankings, and assessment-criteria reform
Who can join	Individuals and organizations worldwide, self-registered	Organizations only (universities, funders, academies/learned societies, research-performing institutions, national assessment authorities, related non-profits) — not individual researchers
What joining requires	A public sign-up; no follow-up deliverable required by DORA itself	A signed Agreement plus a published action plan within 12 months, with periodic progress reporting to the coalition
Compliance checking	None — DORA does not audit or verify signatory practice	Self-reported progress reports; no independent audit of outcomes either, but the action-plan requirement creates a concrete, checkable artifact DORA’s model doesn’t produce
Geographic center of gravity	Global from the outset; signatories in 174 countries	European-founded, now globally growing membership (Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Kenya, and others alongside a still-dominant European base)

Where they overlap — and where institutions sign both

Neither coalition treats the other as a rival. CoARA’s Commitment 3 covers essentially the same substantive ground DORA staked out a decade earlier, and it’s common for a university or funder to be both a DORA signatory and a CoARA member — the two aren’t mutually exclusive, and CoARA membership doesn’t require withdrawing from DORA (or vice versa). The practical difference for an institution deciding what to sign is less “which one is right” and more “what obligation am I taking on”: DORA is a lighter-weight, unaudited public pledge about one specific practice; CoARA is a heavier, EU-anchored governance structure — an actual coalition with a General Assembly, Steering Board, working groups, and a reporting cycle — covering the broader assessment system.

Current signatory and membership numbers

As of this page’s last verification, DORA lists 27,260 individual and organizational signatories in 174 countries (sfdora.org/signers). CoARA lists 840 member organizations worldwide (coara.org/coalition/membership, figure dated 12 June 2026). These numbers move continuously — check the two sites directly for a live count rather than treating either figure here as permanently current.

What replaces the metric? CASRAI’s contribution-based angle

Both DORA and CoARA are explicit about what they’re against — journal-level metrics substituting for actual judgment of a person’s or a paper’s contribution — but neither commitment prescribes a single replacement mechanism; both leave “responsible use of quantitative indicators” and “qualitative peer review” deliberately general, for institutions to operationalize themselves. This is precisely where CASRAI’s own standards work fits, on the assessment-input side rather than the assessment-policy side.

CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), which CASRAI originated in 2014 and now co-stewards with NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, gives research assessment a structured, machine-readable alternative to “counted publications in high-JIF journals”: a declared, per-author breakdown of what each contributor actually did, across the taxonomy’s 14 roles, optionally qualified by the degree-of-contribution qualifier (lead/equal/supporting) added in the 2022 standard. That’s a direct, practical answer to CoARA Commitment 1 — “recognise the diversity of contributions to, and careers in, research” — and it complements the kind of narrative CV and personal statement formats that CoARA action plans commonly adopt in place of publication-count-only dossiers.

None of this means adopting CRediT satisfies DORA or CoARA membership requirements by itself — DORA and CoARA are institutional commitments about assessment policy; CRediT is a data standard describing contribution. But a hiring or tenure committee that has moved away from JIF-based shortcuts (per DORA’s core recommendation, or CoARA Commitment 3) still needs something concrete to look at instead. Structured, role-based contribution data — the kind CRediT statements provide — is one of the few standardized inputs available for that “instead.”

Practical implications for research offices

Check status directly before citing it. Neither DORA signatory status nor CoARA membership is independently audited — a claim of alignment in a grant application or annual report is worth verifying against the source list (sfdora.org/signers, coara.org/coalition/membership) rather than taking on faith.
Don’t conflate “signed DORA” with “abandoned quartile-based criteria.” Signing either commitment is a stated intent, not a completed policy change — see the CASRAI guide to journal impact factor and quartile rankings for how quartile-based tenure criteria specifically map onto DORA’s critique.
An action plan is CoARA-specific, not DORA-specific. If evaluating an institution’s CoARA membership, its published action plan (not the membership announcement) is the actual evidence of what it committed to do and by when.
Structured contribution data is a practical lever, not a policy substitute. Adopting CRediT-based authorship statements gives an assessment committee something concrete to read instead of a journal-quality proxy — useful groundwork for either commitment, but not itself compliance with either.

Frequently asked questions

Is DORA the same thing as CoARA?

No. DORA is a 2012 declaration, mainly about not using journal-level metrics (especially the Journal Impact Factor) as a proxy for individual research quality. CoARA is a 2022, EU-originated coalition built around a broader ten-commitment Agreement covering the whole research assessment system, with formal organizational membership, an action-plan requirement, and periodic reporting. DORA critiques one practice; CoARA is a governance structure for reforming several.

Can an institution sign both DORA and CoARA?

Yes, and many do — they aren’t mutually exclusive or competing initiatives. CoARA’s Commitment 3 covers essentially the same ground DORA staked out, so a CoARA member is very often also a DORA signatory.

Does signing DORA or joining CoARA mean an institution stops using the Journal Impact Factor entirely?

Not necessarily, and neither commitment says that. DORA and CoARA both target a specific misuse — treating a journal-level metric as a surrogate for the quality of an individual article, researcher, or application, particularly in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. Neither bans looking at JIF in other contexts, such as understanding a journal’s general reach or selecting where to submit.

Does adopting CRediT satisfy DORA or CoARA requirements?

No — they operate at different levels. DORA and CoARA are institutional commitments about assessment policy and process. CRediT is a contribution-disclosure data standard. Using CRediT statements can support the kind of qualitative, contribution-based evaluation both commitments call for, but it isn’t itself a DORA signature or a CoARA action plan.

Who can join CoARA — individual researchers or only organizations?

Only organizations: universities and their associations, research centres and infrastructures, academies and learned societies, funding organizations, national/regional research-assessment authorities, and related non-profits. DORA, by contrast, accepts both individual and organizational signatories.

DORA and CoARA: Comparing Research Assessment Reform Commitments