CoARA — the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment — is a coalition of research funders, universities, and academies that formally commits its signatories to base research evaluation primarily on qualitative, peer-reviewed judgement rather than journal metrics and rankings. Launched via the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment in July 2022 and formally constituted in December 2022, CoARA now counts more than 800 signatory organisations working through national chapters and working groups to reform hiring, promotion, and funding criteria.
CoARA is not a certification body or a single standard — it is a coalition structure built around a shared Agreement, a set of principles, and a menu of commitments that each signatory adapts to its own national and disciplinary context.
- What is CoARA and where did it come from?
- What does the CoARA Agreement actually commit signatories to?
- How does CoARA relate to DORA?
- What changes for a hiring or promotion committee after signing?
- What do CoARA’s working groups and national chapters do?
- Answer-first Q&A
- Implications for research administrators
- Where CoARA goes next
What is CoARA and where did it come from?
CoARA emerged from a two-year mutual learning exercise on research assessment reform that the European Commission ran alongside Science Europe and the European University Association (EUA), culminating in the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment being released in July 2022. Around 350 organisations formally adopted CoARA’s governance documents, rules of procedure, and code of conduct at the Coalition’s Constitutive Assembly on 1 December 2022, according to Science Europe’s official record of the meeting.
The Coalition is explicitly framed as a European Research Area initiative with global reach: signatories include universities, funders, and academies well outside the EU. Horizon Europe has continued to underwrite the Coalition’s operating capacity directly — the CoARA Boost project (CORDIS grant 101131826) funds a cascade programme that supports pilot assessment reforms across member organisations rather than treating the Agreement as a one-off declaration.
What does the CoARA Agreement actually commit signatories to?
The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment rests on 10 guiding principles and 10 commitments, split into four core commitments every signatory must pursue and six supporting commitments that describe how reform should be resourced and communicated.
- Recognise the diversity of contributions to and careers in research, beyond publication counts.
- Base assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, with peer review central and quantitative indicators used only to support it.
- Ensure any use of journal- and publication-based metrics — including the Journal Impact Factor and h-index — is responsible and ethical.
- Avoid using institutional rankings in the assessment of individual researchers or units.
- Commit the resources needed to reform assessment practices.
- Review and develop assessment criteria, tools, and processes.
- Raise awareness and provide training on new criteria.
- Exchange practices and experiences within and beyond the Coalition.
- Communicate progress publicly against the commitments.
- Evaluate reforms using solid evidence and make data openly available.
The first four items above are the core commitments; the remaining six are supporting commitments. Every signatory publishes its own action plan within one year of signing, setting institution-specific milestones against this shared list — the Agreement deliberately avoids prescribing a single implementation template.
How does CoARA relate to DORA?
CoARA and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) share a target — the misuse of journal-level metrics in individual assessment — but differ in scope, governance, and mechanism. DORA, launched in 2012, is a shorter declaration signatories endorse with comparatively light follow-through obligations. CoARA is a formally constituted coalition with governance documents, a Steering Board, mandatory action plans, and a network of national chapters.
| Feature | DORA | CoARA |
|---|---|---|
| Launched | 2012, San Francisco | July 2022 (Agreement); constituted December 2022 |
| Primary focus | Ending Journal Impact Factor misuse | Systemic reform of hiring, promotion, and funding assessment |
| Governance | Declaration with voluntary sign-on | Formal coalition, Steering Board, code of conduct |
| Follow-through | No mandatory action plan | Action plan required within 1 year of signing |
| Regional anchor | Originated in the US biology community | European Research Area–facilitated, global signatories |
Many institutions sign both: DORA and CoARA are complementary rather than competing, and CoARA’s own principles explicitly build on the earlier metrics-reform movement DORA started.
What changes for a hiring or promotion committee after signing?
Signing the Agreement is a distinct step from becoming a CoARA Member — a distinction most explainer coverage of CoARA skips entirely. Any organisation involved in research assessment can sign; only signatories that separately apply for Member status gain voting rights at CoARA’s General Assemblies and a seat in collective governance decisions. Membership carries no fee.
For a hiring or promotion committee, the practical shift plays out over that first year:
- Publication of an institution-specific action plan mapping current criteria against the 10 commitments.
- Review of hiring, promotion, and tenure criteria to reduce reliance on the Journal Impact Factor and h-index as proxies for quality.
- Piloting of narrative CV formats that let researchers describe contributions — datasets, software, mentoring, public engagement — in context rather than as a metrics table.
- Training for panel members and administrators on the new criteria before they are applied to live decisions.
Committees should expect a phased transition, not an overnight switch: CoARA’s commitments are directional and self-paced, so two signatory institutions can be at very different points of implementation at the same time.
What do CoARA’s working groups and national chapters do?
CoARA’s first Working Groups and National Chapters formed from September 2022 onward, giving signatories two parallel routes to collaborate: Working Groups tackle a specific reform topic (such as narrative CVs or open science indicators) across borders, while National Chapters — including the UK CoARA National Chapter — adapt the Agreement’s commitments to a single country’s funding and academic-employment context.
The UK National Chapter, for example, brings together universities and funders to share how REF-adjacent assessment practices can align with CoARA’s qualitative-first principle without duplicating existing UK compliance frameworks.
Answer-first Q&A
What is the CoARA Agreement?
The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment is the founding document signatories commit to, built on 10 principles and 10 commitments — four core, six supporting. It sets a shared direction and timeframe for reform while leaving implementation detail to each signatory’s own action plan.
Is CoARA the same as DORA?
No. DORA is a 2012 declaration focused narrowly on ending Journal Impact Factor misuse. CoARA is a formally governed coalition, launched in 2022, with mandatory action plans, a Steering Board, and a broader systemic-reform mandate that many institutions adopt alongside DORA.
What are CoARA working groups?
Working Groups are cross-border teams of signatories that develop practical tools and evidence on a specific reform theme, such as narrative CVs or responsible metrics. They formed alongside CoARA’s National Chapters from September 2022 and report progress back to the full Coalition.
How many organisations have signed CoARA?
More than 800 organisations had signed the Agreement as of 2026, according to CoARA’s own signatory registry — up from roughly 350 at the Coalition’s December 2022 Constitutive Assembly. Signatory numbers are published and updated on CoARA’s website.
Implications for research administrators
For research administrators, CoARA’s practical weight sits in the action-plan cycle, not the signature itself. A signature commits leadership to intent; the action plan is the document auditors, funders, and REF-adjacent panels will actually reference. Administrators drafting or reviewing hiring and promotion criteria should treat the four core commitments as a checklist against existing forms and rubrics — particularly any surviving requirement to state a Journal Impact Factor or numeric ranking.
Funders that have signed layer a further obligation: grant assessment panels trained under CoARA’s principles must be able to justify qualitative judgements on record, which changes what evidence applicants are asked to submit.
Where CoARA goes next
CoARA’s trajectory depends on converting signatures into audited action-plan delivery — the Coalition’s own commitment to “communicate progress” implies a maturing accountability layer as more institutions pass their one-year and multi-year review points. Horizon Europe’s continued funding of the CoARA Boost cascade programme signals that the European Commission expects national chapters, not just the central Coalition, to carry implementation forward. Institutions evaluating whether to sign should read the Agreement’s commitments, not just its principles — the commitments are what an action plan, and eventually an audit, will be measured against.
For related standards work on documenting research contributions, see CASRAI’s coverage of research administration practice and the CASRAI dictionary of research-assessment terminology.
