The Forum for Responsible Research Metrics is the UK’s national coordinating body for the responsible use of research metrics. Established in 2016 following the 2015 Metric Tide review, it advises UK higher education funding bodies on metrics use in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and promotes alignment with DORA and CoARA principles.
The Forum for Responsible Research Metrics is an independent, sector-wide group of UK research funders, sector bodies and infrastructure experts convened to promote fair and transparent use of quantitative indicators in research assessment. It sits alongside — but is distinct from — the global DORA declaration and the European CoARA coalition, and its guidance shapes how UK institutions design metrics policy ahead of the REF.
- What is the Forum for Responsible Research Metrics?
- When and why was the Forum established?
- How does the Forum relate to DORA and CoARA?
- What is the Forum’s role in the REF?
- What does the Forum’s guidance mean for research offices?
- Frequently asked questions
What is the Forum for Responsible Research Metrics?
The Forum for Responsible Research Metrics is a UK sector body, not a regulator. It has no statutory powers and cannot compel institutions to adopt any metric or policy. Instead it functions as an advisory and convening body, bringing together funders, universities and data-infrastructure providers to agree shared principles for using metrics responsibly in research assessment.
Its core functions, as set out at its founding, are threefold: advise the UK higher education funding bodies on metrics use in the REF; provide advocacy and leadership on responsible metrics within the UK sector; and establish links with equivalent international initiatives. The Forum is administratively supported by Universities UK (UUK), which convenes its meetings and publishes its outputs.
When and why was the Forum established?
The Forum’s origins trace directly to a government-commissioned review. In 2014 the then Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) — now folded into UKRI’s Research England — commissioned an independent expert group to examine the use of metrics in research evaluation, particularly within the REF. The resulting report, The Metric Tide, was published on 9 July 2015.
The Metric Tide concluded that metrics could be a useful adjunct to peer review but warned against their use as a substitute for expert judgement, and recommended that institutions consider signing DORA or applying its principles. It also recommended that a UK-wide body be established to advise funders on metrics use in the REF, provide sector leadership, and build international links. The Forum for Responsible Research Metrics was convened in 2016 to fulfil that recommendation.
- 2014 — HEFCE commissions the independent metrics review
- 9 July 2015 — The Metric Tide report is published
- 2016 — The Forum for Responsible Research Metrics is convened, supported by Universities UK
- 2021 — Forum advice informs metrics use across the three REF2021 assessment elements
- December 2022 — Sector commentary (Wonkhe) calls for an expanded Forum remit, including holding data providers to account
How does the Forum relate to DORA and CoARA?
The Forum, DORA and CoARA are three distinct bodies with overlapping but separate mandates, and conflating them is a common source of confusion for research offices drafting policy. The table below sets out how each operates and how they connect to one another.
| Body | Founded | Scope | Core mechanism | Link to the Forum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forum for Responsible Research Metrics | 2016 | UK-wide, advisory to HE funding bodies | Advises funders on metrics use in the REF; monitors DORA/CoARA uptake | — |
| DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) | 2013 | International, institution/publisher signatory declaration | Signatories pledge not to use the Journal Impact Factor as a proxy for individual quality in hiring, promotion or funding decisions | The Metric Tide recommended UK institutions sign DORA; the Forum promotes and tracks its adoption |
| CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment) | 2022 | Pan-European coalition, member commitments | Signatories commit to reforming assessment criteria and procedures over a defined implementation period | Complementary European framework; several UK signatories hold both DORA and CoARA membership alongside Forum-aligned institutional policy |
| REF (Research Excellence Framework) | 2014 (successor to the RAE) | UK-wide, all HE institutions | Periodic peer-review-led assessment of research quality, impact and environment | The Forum’s core client — its advice shapes how funding bodies use metrics within REF criteria |
In practice, the Forum does not ask institutions to sign anything. DORA and CoARA are commitments an institution opts into; the Forum’s guidance is advisory input into how UK funders design and apply metrics within a statutory national exercise.
What is the Forum’s role in the REF?
The Forum’s most concrete, recurring function is advising UK higher education funding bodies on how metrics should — and should not — be used within the REF’s three assessment elements: outputs, impact and environment. This advice fed directly into REF2021 guidance and is expected to inform preparation for the next exercise, REF 2029.
UKRI’s Research England states that the Forum works to improve the data infrastructure underpinning metric use and the broader culture around research metrics, not just the rules for a single assessment cycle. That distinction matters for research offices: Forum guidance is a standing reference point for metrics governance, not a one-off REF submission checklist.
- Outputs — metrics may inform but must not substitute for peer review of research quality
- Impact — quantitative indicators supplement, rather than replace, narrative impact case studies
- Environment — metrics contribute contextual evidence on research culture and infrastructure
What does the Forum’s guidance mean for research offices?
For research administrators building or reviewing a metrics policy, Forum guidance sets a de facto national baseline: metrics should be used transparently, contextually, and never as an automatic proxy for quality in hiring, promotion or funding decisions. This mirrors DORA’s core ask but is framed specifically for REF-facing institutional practice.
Institutional research offices typically apply this in three ways: auditing existing use of journal-level and author-level metrics in internal review processes; documenting which indicators are used for which decisions and why; and aligning local policy statements with DORA and, where relevant, CoARA commitments so REF-facing metrics governance is not developed in isolation. Institutions building or auditing research assessment policy can find related structural guidance in CASRAI’s research administration resources.
The December 2022 sector call to expand the Forum’s remit — including holding metrics data providers to account — signals that its scope is likely to widen beyond REF-facing advice toward broader accountability for the commercial infrastructure that supplies citation and impact data. Research offices should treat current Forum guidance as a floor, not a ceiling, when drafting policy ahead of REF 2029.
Frequently asked questions
Who chairs the UK Forum for Responsible Research Metrics?
As of Universities UK’s most recently published listing, the Forum is chaired by Professor Max Lu, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Surrey. The Forum itself comprises representatives from UK research funders, sector bodies and data-infrastructure organisations, convened administratively by Universities UK.
Is the Forum for Responsible Research Metrics the same as DORA?
No. DORA is a global signatory declaration institutions and individuals opt into; the Forum is a UK sector body advising funders on metrics within the REF. The Metric Tide review recommended UK institutions sign DORA, and the Forum monitors and promotes that uptake without being DORA itself.
What did the Metric Tide report recommend?
Published 9 July 2015, The Metric Tide recommended that metrics support but never replace peer review, that institutions consider signing DORA, and that a national Forum be established to advise funders on responsible metrics use in the REF and build international links.
Does the Forum’s advice apply to REF 2029?
Yes. The Forum’s advisory role is standing, not exercise-specific, and its guidance on metrics in outputs, impact and environment assessment is expected to inform funding-body preparation for REF 2029 as it did for REF2021.
What’s next for responsible metrics in the UK?
With REF 2029 preparation underway and sector pressure to widen the Forum’s remit toward data-provider accountability, UK research offices should expect Forum guidance to evolve rather than stay fixed. Institutions that align internal metrics policy with Forum principles now, rather than at the point of REF submission, will face less rework as that remit expands.
