Responsible research assessment is the principle that researchers and their work should be evaluated on their actual content, quality and contribution, rather than on proxy metrics such as the prestige of the journals in which they publish. Over the past decade a series of declarations and coalitions has turned this principle into a coordinated reform movement, reshaping how universities, funders and publishers make decisions about hiring, promotion and grants.
The core argument is straightforward: numbers derived from where research appears are a weak substitute for judging what the research actually achieves.
Why proxies became a problem
For years, journal-level indicators such as the Journal Impact Factor were used as shorthand for individual quality, despite being designed to compare journals rather than people. This created perverse incentives, encouraging researchers to chase prestigious venues, discouraging the publication of negative or replication results, and disadvantaging valuable outputs such as datasets, software and public engagement that no single metric captures. The flaws of journal metrics are detailed in our explainer on the Journal Impact Factor and its critique.
The key frameworks
Four landmark initiatives anchor the responsible assessment landscape.
| Framework | Form | Central contribution |
|---|---|---|
| DORA | Declaration | Recommends not using journal metrics to assess individual articles or researchers |
| Leiden Manifesto | Set of principles | Ten principles for responsible use of quantitative metrics |
| The Metric Tide | Review report | Framework for responsible metrics in research evaluation |
| CoARA | Coalition and agreement | Commitments to reform assessment, prioritising qualitative judgement |
DORA
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment recommends that journal-based metrics not be used as a surrogate for the quality of individual research articles or to assess an individual scientist’s contributions. It calls on institutions and funders to be explicit about the criteria used in decisions and to value all research outputs, not just publications.
The Leiden Manifesto
The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics sets out ten principles, including that quantitative evaluation should support rather than replace expert assessment, that performance should be measured against the research missions of the institution or researcher, and that indicators should be kept transparent and regularly scrutinised for their effects.
The Metric Tide
The Metric Tide was an independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment. It introduced a framework for responsible metrics, emphasising robustness, humility, transparency, diversity of measures and reflexivity, and warned against allowing indicators to drive behaviour in unintended ways.
CoARA
The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) brings organisations together around a shared agreement to reform assessment practices. Its commitments include recognising the diversity of research contributions and careers, basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators, and moving away from inappropriate uses of journal- and publication-based metrics.
From proxies to assessing the research itself
The practical shift these frameworks encourage is towards reading and judging the work. This means convening expert panels, considering a broad range of outputs and activities, and recognising contributions such as mentorship, data sharing, open-science practice and team science. It aligns with the contributor-focused approach in our CRediT contributor roles guidance, which makes individual contributions to a project visible rather than collapsing them into a single author list.
Narrative CVs
One of the most visible products of this movement is the narrative CV. Instead of listing publications ranked by journal prestige, a narrative CV asks researchers to describe their contributions in prose: the significance of their work, their role in collaborations, their contributions to the research community, and their support for others. This format is designed to surface the kinds of value that metrics miss, and to let evaluators assess substance over volume. Narrative formats are a recurring theme across our responsible assessment coverage and reflect the same priorities promoted by CoARA and DORA. Definitions of the key terms are maintained in our standards dictionary.
Frequently asked questions
What is responsible research assessment?
It is the practice of evaluating research and researchers on the actual quality, content and contribution of their work, supported by responsible use of metrics, rather than relying on journal-based proxies such as impact factors.
What does DORA actually ask institutions to do?
DORA asks institutions and funders to stop using journal metrics as a proxy for individual quality, to be transparent about assessment criteria, and to value the full range of research outputs rather than publications alone.
What is a narrative CV?
A narrative CV is a structured prose account of a researcher’s contributions and their significance, replacing a metrics-ranked publication list so that evaluators can judge substance, role and wider impact.
How do the Leiden Manifesto and the Metric Tide relate to DORA?
They are complementary. DORA targets the misuse of journal metrics, the Leiden Manifesto offers principles for using metrics responsibly, and the Metric Tide provides a framework for responsible metrics; CoARA gathers these commitments into a shared reform agreement.
