In April 2026, the OECD published a policy brief titled Reforming Research Assessment for Better Science (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers series, dated 27 April 2026, DOI 10.1787/f6202159-en). It is the OECD’s own contribution to a policy conversation that DORA and CoARA have been driving from the research-community side since 2013 and 2022 respectively — this time from an intergovernmental science-policy body whose signal reaches national funding agencies and ministries directly, not only individual institutions and researchers.
What the report actually is
The brief is not a survey report or a new set of principles competing with DORA or CoARA. It reads current research-assessment practice against the reform agenda those initiatives (and the earlier 2022 Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, ARRA, that CoARA grew out of) have already put on the table, and asks what OECD member governments should do with that agenda at a policy level. It sits alongside a companion OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper, New Expectations and Demands from Science (2026/07), published the same month, which frames the wider pressure researchers and research systems are under to demonstrate societal relevance, openness, and integrity alongside traditional academic output.
Key findings
- Narrow metrics still dominate. The brief finds that research assessment continues to play a decisive role in shaping researchers’ priorities, institutional funding decisions, and career progression — but that current practice still relies heavily on narrow, publication- and citation-based performance measures.
- What gets undervalued. That over-reliance on narrow measures tends to undervalue exactly the practices reform agendas have been pushing for: collaboration, open science practices, societal and policy impact, and the kind of support work (data curation, mentoring, review, infrastructure contributions) that keeps a research system functioning but rarely shows up in a citation count.
- System-level strain, not just individual unfairness. The OECD frames the consequence in system terms: misaligned incentives strain research systems as a whole and can produce perverse behavior, not merely disadvantage individual researchers who work outside the metrics that get rewarded.
What the report recommends
The brief’s recommendations sit at the level of national policy rather than individual institutional practice:
- Balanced, cost-effective, transparent alternatives. It calls for research assessment approaches that are more balanced across output types, more transparent about the criteria being applied, and realistic about the administrative cost of running them — not simply “add more indicators.”
- Open data and governed AI use. It ties reform to open research data infrastructure and to carefully governed use of AI in assessment processes themselves, rather than treating those as separate policy tracks.
- Testing alternative tools, not just declaring principles. The brief explicitly calls for developing and piloting alternative evaluation tools and processes aimed at a healthier research culture, acknowledging that signing a set of principles (as DORA and CoARA signatories do) is a different step from having a working replacement for the metrics being retired.
- A role for national policy, not only institutions. It recommends that governments highlight these reform initiatives in national science strategy, and consider building alignment with emerging international assessment principles into their own cyclical institutional-assessment exercises — effectively asking funders and ministries to use their leverage, not just leave reform to universities acting alone.
- Coordinated but flexible implementation. It emphasizes cooperation among the many actors involved (funders, institutions, disciplinary communities) around shared general principles, while leaving room for different national and disciplinary implementation paths — the same tension CASRAI’s own DORA/CoARA comparison covers between a short, sharp commitment (DORA) and a longer, phased implementation process (CoARA).
How this fits with DORA, CoARA, and national reform efforts
For a research administrator already tracking assessment reform, the useful way to place this report is as a policy-level validation and framing document, not a new commitment to track separately. DORA (2012/2013) and the 2022 ARRA/CoARA lineage originated as bottom-up, sign-on commitments from research organizations and funders — see CASRAI’s own comparison of DORA vs. CoARA and the fuller DORA and CoARA reform-commitments guide for how those two differ in scope and mechanism. The OECD brief effectively asks OECD member governments to treat that reform direction as a policy priority in its own right, alongside efforts like the US MA3 Challenge that are already moving from declaration to implementation at the institutional level, and the growing set of CoARA national chapters coordinating implementation country by country.
What it means for research administrators
The report itself sets no new compliance requirement — OECD policy briefs are not binding obligations on member states or their funding agencies. Its practical relevance for a research office is as an early signal: when the OECD frames research-assessment reform as a matter for national science strategy and cyclical institutional assessment, that increases the likelihood that funders and ministries in OECD member countries will build assessment-reform expectations into funding conditions, institutional audits, or national research-evaluation frameworks over the next several years, following the pattern already visible in CoARA national chapters. Research offices tracking promotion-and-tenure criteria, funder compliance requirements, or institutional research-assessment policy have reason to watch how national funders in their own country respond to this brief, rather than treating it as a one-off publication with no downstream effect.
Frequently asked questions
Is this OECD report the same thing as DORA or CoARA?
No. DORA and CoARA are sign-on commitments made by research organizations, funders, and institutions themselves. The OECD report is a policy brief from an intergovernmental organization analyzing the state of research-assessment reform and recommending action to national governments; it does not create a signatory mechanism of its own.
Does the OECD report create any new compliance obligation?
Not directly. OECD policy briefs are recommendations to member governments, not binding requirements on institutions or researchers. Any concrete obligation would come later, if and when a national funder or ministry translates the recommendations into an actual funding condition or evaluation framework.
Where can I read the report itself?
The full brief is published on oecd.org under the title Reforming Research Assessment for Better Science (DOI 10.1787/f6202159-en), dated 27 April 2026.
