Explainer · Plain-language

The Hong Kong Principles: Definition, Meaning & Examples | CASRAI

The Hong Kong Principles are a set of five principles for assessing researchers in ways that reward responsible research practices and strengthen research integrity. Developed at the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong in 2019 and published in 2020, they shift the focus of assessment from where and how much someone publishes towards the trustworthiness and rigour of how their research is actually done.

CASRAI plain-language explainers — clear answers to recurring research-administration questions

The short answer

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers emerged from the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (Hong Kong, 2019) and were published by Moher and colleagues in PLOS Biology in 2020. They set out five principles: assess responsible research practices; value complete and transparent reporting; reward the practice of open science (such as open data and open methods); acknowledge a broad range of research activities (including peer review, mentoring, and replication); and recognise essential tasks like administration and team science. Their explicit aim is to align how institutions and funders evaluate researchers with the behaviours that produce trustworthy science. They complement the metric-focused critique of DORA, the reform agenda of CoARA, and the indicator guidance of the Leiden Manifesto.

The step most authors miss

Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.

A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.

Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.

Origin and purpose

The Hong Kong Principles were developed at the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity, held in Hong Kong in 2019, and set out in a paper led by David Moher and colleagues published in PLOS Biology in 2020. They respond to a long-standing concern: that conventional assessment — heavily weighted towards publication counts and journal prestige — can incentivise behaviour that undermines the integrity of research. The purpose of the principles is to ensure that researchers are explicitly assessed and rewarded for doing rigorous, transparent, and trustworthy work. They are aimed at the institutions, funders, and committees that make hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, encouraging them to build responsible research behaviours into their criteria.

The five principles

The first principle is to assess responsible research practices — rewarding rigorous methods and conduct. The second is to value complete and transparent reporting, so that what was planned, done, and found is reported fully, including null results. The third is to reward the practice of open science, such as sharing data, code, and protocols openly. The fourth principle is to acknowledge a broad range of research activities, including peer review, mentoring, replication, and the development of resources, rather than counting only papers. The fifth is to recognise essential research tasks such as administration, team science, and other contributions that keep research functioning but are often invisible in traditional assessment.

A behaviour-focused approach

What distinguishes the Hong Kong Principles is their focus on behaviours and practices rather than on outputs or metrics. Where much assessment asks "what did this person produce and where?", the principles ask "did this person do research in a responsible, transparent, and trustworthy way?". This reframes the incentive structure to encourage good conduct directly. By rewarding open methods, transparent reporting, reproducibility, and a wider range of contributions, the principles aim to close the gap between the values that the research community professes — integrity and rigour — and the criteria by which researchers are actually judged.

Relationship to DORA, CoARA and Leiden

The Hong Kong Principles sit within a broader movement to reform research assessment. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA, 2012) calls for an end to misusing journal-based metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor in evaluating individuals. The Leiden Manifesto (2015) offers ten principles for the responsible use of metrics. The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), launched in 2022, provides an agreement and community through which organisations commit to reform. The Hong Kong Principles are complementary: where DORA focuses on what assessment should stop doing (over-relying on metrics) and CoARA provides the vehicle for institutional commitment, the Hong Kong Principles articulate the positive research behaviours that assessment should actively reward.

Key facts

At a glance

Definition: Five principles for assessing researchers responsibly
Origin: 6th World Conference on Research Integrity, Hong Kong, 2019
Published: Moher et al., PLOS Biology, 2020
Focus: Rewarding responsible research behaviours, not just outputs
Themes: Responsible practice, transparent reporting, open science
Context: Complements DORA, CoARA, and the Leiden Manifesto

Common misconceptions

What people often get wrong

Often heard: The Hong Kong Principles are just another version of DORA.

Actually: No — DORA focuses on stopping the misuse of journal metrics, while the Hong Kong Principles set out the positive research behaviours, such as transparency and open science, that assessment should actively reward.

Often heard: They tell institutions exactly which metrics to use instead.

Actually: No — they are principles about rewarding responsible practices and a broad range of activities, not a prescribed scoring system. Institutions translate them into their own criteria.

Often heard: They only concern research integrity offices, not hiring or promotion.

Actually: No — they are explicitly aimed at how researchers are assessed for hiring, promotion, and funding, so that integrity-supporting behaviours are built into those decisions.

Going deeper