CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: coara principles

  • Quantitative Indicators in Research Assessment: A Hiring and Promotion Panel Guide

    Under DORA and the CoARA Agreement, quantitative indicators such as the Journal Impact Factor and h-index must never substitute for expert peer judgement in hiring and promotion decisions — they may only inform it, applied with clarity, transparency, specificity, context and fairness, alongside a broader account of a candidate’s contributions.

    Quantitative indicators in research assessment are numerical proxies for research activity — citation counts, the h-index, Journal Impact Factor, field-normalised citation ratios and altmetrics — used, under explicit caveats, to inform rather than replace qualitative evaluation of a researcher’s work.

    Research offices translating this principle into a hiring or promotion brief face a harder question than “which metrics are banned?” Panels need operational wording for the call, the assessor briefing and the case file. This guide sets out what DORA, the CoARA Agreement and the UK’s Forum for Responsible Research Metrics concretely require, and how to turn that into panel-ready criteria.

    Contents

    What counts as a quantitative indicator in research assessment?

    A quantitative indicator is any numerical measure derived from research outputs or activity: citation counts, the h-index, the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), field-normalised citation ratios, grant income, patent counts and altmetric mentions all qualify. None was designed to certify the quality of a single article or a single person’s contribution.

    The University of York’s policy for research evaluation using quantitative data, approved by its Research Committee in November 2017, makes the distinction explicit: indicators are informative at departmental or institutional level, but “the assessment of individual research performance using solely quantitative indicators is not supported.” That collective-versus-individual distinction is the fault line every hiring and promotion policy has to draw.

    What does DORA require for hiring and promotion panels?

    The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), agreed in December 2012, states a single unambiguous prohibition that panels must apply: do not use journal-based metrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. That sentence, not a general suspicion of numbers, is DORA’s operative rule for panels.

    DORA does not ban quantitative indicators outright. Its 2024 guidance document on the responsible use of quantitative indicators, produced by a DORA task force chaired by Professor Stephen Curry and published via Zenodo, sets out five principles that must govern any indicator a panel does choose to use: be clear, be transparent, be specific, be contextual, and be fair. These are DORA’s own words. Some AI-generated summaries currently paraphrase this as “the five Cs” — clarity, context, calibration, care, credit — a mnemonic that does not appear anywhere in DORA’s published guidance; panels drafting criteria should cite DORA’s actual five principles instead.

    Applied to a panel: state which indicator is being consulted and why (clear); disclose the data source and calculation method (transparent); tie the indicator to the specific claim it supports, not a general quality judgement (specific); benchmark against discipline and career stage (contextual); and check for bias against gender, geography, career breaks or non-traditional outputs (fair).

    What does the CoARA Agreement commit panels to?

    The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) launched its Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment in 2022, since signed by several hundred universities, funders, national agencies and learned societies across Europe and beyond. The Agreement sets ten commitments; its core, non-negotiable commitment is to “abandon inappropriate uses in research assessment of journal- and publication-based metrics, in particular inappropriate uses of Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and h-index.”

    Beyond that prohibition, CoARA’s commitments push panels toward qualitative peer review as the primary method, recognition of a wider range of outputs — datasets, software, protocols, policy engagement, mentoring and open-science practice — and narrative formats such as narrative CVs that let candidates describe contributions in their own words.

    The table below compares the three frameworks a UK or European research office is most likely to be asked to reconcile.

    Framework Origin and scope Core requirement for hiring/promotion Status of quantitative indicators
    DORA Global; agreed San Francisco, December 2012 Do not use JIF as a surrogate for individual quality in hiring, promotion or funding decisions Conditional use only, governed by five principles: clear, transparent, specific, contextual, fair
    CoARA Agreement Pan-European coalition; launched 2022 Core commitment to abandon inappropriate JIF/h-index use in individual assessment Indicators permitted only to support, not replace, qualitative peer review
    Forum for Responsible Research Metrics (UK) UK sector body, stemming from The Metric Tide (Wilsdon et al., HEFCE, 2015) Institutions asked to publish a responsible-metrics statement covering hiring/promotion criteria Five dimensions: robustness, humility, transparency, diversity, reflexivity

    Translating principles into concrete panel criteria

    Principles do not write themselves into a job description. A defensible panel criteria set, translating DORA, CoARA and Forum for Responsible Research Metrics guidance into working practice, includes:

    • State in the call and case-file template that the Journal Impact Factor, h-index and journal rank will not be used as proxies for individual quality (DORA’s core recommendation).
    • Offer or require a narrative CV alongside, or instead of, a conventional publication list, so data, software, mentoring and open-science contributions are visible to assessors.
    • If citation data is used at all, require field-normalised indicators rather than raw counts, and disclose the source database in the case file.
    • Credit non-publication outputs explicitly in the assessment rubric, consistent with CoARA’s broadened-recognition commitments.
    • Brief panel members on indicator limitations before each cycle, per the Forum for Responsible Research Metrics’ “humility” dimension.
    • Record, for each case, which indicators (if any) were consulted and the specific claim they supported (DORA’s “transparent” and “specific” principles).
    • Review the criteria annually, reflecting the “reflexivity” dimension shared by the Leiden Manifesto (Hicks et al., Nature, 2015) and the Forum for Responsible Research Metrics.

    A useful complementary vocabulary for the “credit non-publication outputs” step is a structured contributor-role taxonomy. CASRAI originated the CRediT contributor role taxonomy in 2014; the standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022. Panels reviewing narrative CVs can use CRediT’s fourteen roles to make specific, verifiable contribution claims — distinguishing data curation from formal analysis, for example — rather than relying on author order or citation counts as a proxy for who did what.

    Frequently asked questions

    What are quantitative indicators in research assessment?

    Quantitative indicators are numerical measures of research activity, including citation counts, the h-index, Journal Impact Factor, field-normalised citation ratios and altmetric mentions. DORA’s guidance treats them as descriptive data points requiring context, not standalone quality scores, and warns against using any single indicator in isolation.

    Does DORA allow any use of quantitative indicators in hiring and promotion?

    Yes, conditionally. DORA does not ban indicators outright; it prohibits journal-based metrics like the Journal Impact Factor as a surrogate for individual quality in hiring, promotion or funding decisions. Where indicators are used, DORA’s five principles — clear, transparent, specific, contextual, fair — must govern their application.

    What does the CoARA Agreement require of hiring and promotion panels?

    CoARA’s core commitment obliges signatories to abandon inappropriate use of journal- and publication-based metrics, particularly the Journal Impact Factor and h-index, in individual assessment. Panels must prioritise qualitative peer judgement, broaden recognised output types, and adopt formats such as narrative CVs.

    What is a narrative CV, and is it required under responsible metrics guidance?

    A narrative CV lets candidates describe significant contributions — including data, software, mentoring and open-science practice — in their own words, rather than through a publication-and-citation list. DORA and CoARA both recommend narrative formats to support qualitative review, though neither makes them a formal, binding requirement.

    Implications for research offices

    UK institutions face a specific reconciliation problem: government is considering bibliometric data as an optional component of the next Research Excellence Framework exercise, REF 2029, at discipline and institutional level, even as DORA and CoARA prohibit citation-based proxies at the level of the individual hire. Policy wording needs to keep these two scales distinct — permitting aggregate bibliometric reporting upward to funders while barring the same data from an individual case file.

    The direction of travel across DORA and CoARA signatories is consistent: fewer single-number thresholds, more disclosed and contextualised indicator use, and a growing expectation that panels can explain, in writing, which evidence supported which judgement. Research offices that build this documentation habit now, rather than waiting for a funder or auditor to ask, will find each subsequent cycle easier to defend, not harder.

  • DORA vs CoARA: What Administrators Should Know

    DORA vs CoARA are two distinct but connected research-assessment reform initiatives. DORA — the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, launched in 2012 — is a voluntary declaration that asks signatories to stop using journal-based metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor as a proxy for research quality. CoARA — the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, formed in 2022 out of the EU-anchored Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment — asks member organisations to go further: sign ten explicit commitments and publish an implementation action plan. For research administrators deciding where to commit institutional resources, DORA sets the principle; CoARA sets the practice.

    DORA is best understood as a global statement of intent. CoARA is best understood as a structured, governed coalition with working groups, national chapters and reporting obligations. Many organisations do both — CoARA itself describes DORA as a foundational influence rather than a competing framework.

    Contents

    What is DORA?

    The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a declaration developed in December 2012 at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting in San Francisco. DORA is a set of recommendations against using journal-based metrics — chiefly the Journal Impact Factor — as a proxy for the quality of individual articles, researchers or institutions.

    The declaration sets out one general recommendation plus tailored recommendations for five stakeholder groups: funding agencies, institutions, publishers, organisations that supply metrics, and researchers themselves. Its central instruction is consistent across all five: assess research on its own scientific merits, not on the reputation of the journal it appears in.

    DORA operates as a signature-based declaration hosted at sfdora.org. There is no membership fee, no mandatory reporting cycle and no central secretariat enforcing compliance — an organisation or individual signs, and DORA relies on public accountability and community pressure to drive change.

    What is CoARA?

    The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) is a coalition of research funders, universities, national academies and other research organisations that formed in 2022 around the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA), finalised that July with support from the European Commission and Science Europe. CoARA is a formal coalition, not a signature-only declaration: joining requires accepting ten explicit commitments and developing a published action plan.

    The ARRA’s ten commitments split into two tiers. Four “core commitments” are mandatory for every signatory, covering peer review as the primary basis of assessment, abandoning inappropriate use of journal- and publication-based metrics including the Journal Impact Factor and h-index, and rejecting the use of institutional rankings in assessment decisions. Six further commitments allow signatories to choose their own pace and approach.

    CoARA is governed through a General Assembly, a Steering Board and thematic Working Groups, and it operates national and regional chapters — including a UK National Chapter co-led by the Universities of Strathclyde, Loughborough and Swansea, according to the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA).

    DORA vs CoARA: key differences

    The two initiatives address overlapping goals through very different mechanisms. The table below summarises the practical distinctions an administrator needs before choosing where to commit.

    Feature DORA CoARA
    Founded 2012, San Francisco 2022, EU-anchored coalition
    Founding document San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA)
    Form of commitment Voluntary signature Formal membership with ten commitments
    Primary target Misuse of journal-based metrics (e.g. Journal Impact Factor) Whole-system reform of research careers and evaluation
    Governance No central secretariat; community-driven General Assembly, Steering Board, working groups, national chapters
    Follow-up obligation None mandatory Published implementation action plan required
    Geographic anchor Global, unaffiliated Originated in Europe; open to global membership

    How CoARA builds on DORA

    CoARA does not compete with DORA — it explicitly builds on it. Both organisations issued a joint statement in December 2025 describing themselves as “two of a diverse and global group of initiatives that share the aim of driving systemic change towards better research assessment,” according to CoARA’s own news pages. Many CoARA member organisations were DORA signatories first.

    Three concrete extensions distinguish CoARA’s approach from DORA’s:

    • From declaration to action plan. DORA asks for a signature; CoARA requires signatories to publish an action plan implementing the ten ARRA commitments within an agreed timeframe.
    • From one metric problem to whole-system reform. DORA’s scope centres on journal-based metrics. CoARA’s core commitments extend to peer review practice, diversity of research outputs, and the rejection of institutional rankings as an assessment tool.
    • From individual signature to governed coalition. DORA has no membership structure beyond its signatory list. CoARA runs a General Assembly, Steering Board, thematic working groups and national chapters — including the UK chapter co-led by Strathclyde, Loughborough and Swansea — that coordinate implementation and share practice across members.

    Which should your institution commit to?

    For most research organisations this is not an either/or choice. DORA signature carries low administrative overhead and signals a clear public position against metric misuse — a reasonable first step for any institution, funder or publisher. CoARA membership is the heavier commitment: it requires governance capacity to produce and report against an action plan, and it suits institutions ready to reform hiring, promotion and evaluation processes at a systemic level, not just at the level of individual metrics.

    Institutions with limited capacity should sign DORA first and use it to build internal consensus before taking on CoARA’s action-plan obligations. Institutions already running research-culture or REF-adjacent reform programmes are better placed to join CoARA directly, since the ten commitments map closely onto work many UK universities are already doing through national chapters and INORMS-linked evaluation groups.

    Answer-first Q&A

    What does DORA stand for in research?

    DORA stands for the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, launched in December 2012. It calls on funders, institutions, publishers and researchers to stop using journal-based metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor as a substitute for evaluating the actual scientific content of research outputs.

    What is CoARA and how does it differ from DORA?

    CoARA is the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, a 2022 coalition built on the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. Unlike DORA’s voluntary signature, CoARA requires member organisations to accept ten formal commitments and publish an implementation action plan, coordinated through national chapters and working groups.

    What are the DORA principles?

    DORA’s core principle is that research quality must be assessed on its own merits, not on the venue where it is published. Its recommendations cover funding agencies, institutions, publishers, metrics suppliers and researchers, each urged to eliminate journal-based metrics from funding, hiring and promotion decisions.

    Does DORA apply in the UK?

    DORA is a voluntary global declaration, not a UK legal requirement, but numerous UK universities and funders are signatories. UK institutions increasingly reference DORA and CoARA together in responsible-metrics policies connected to REF-related research culture and assessment reform work.

    Implications for research administrators

    The practical takeaway for administrators is a sequencing question, not a binary choice. DORA signature is fast, low-cost and a credible public marker of intent. CoARA membership is a governance commitment that touches hiring panels, promotion criteria and institutional reporting cycles, and it demands sustained capacity from a research-culture or research-strategy office.

    As responsible research assessment moves from advocacy into funder and institutional policy — with UNESCO, Science Europe and national funders increasingly referencing both frameworks — administrators should expect DORA and CoARA to be treated as complementary layers: DORA the founding principle, CoARA the operational coalition that turns it into an implementation plan.

    For related context on how research contributions are formally recognised alongside assessment reform, see CASRAI’s overview of research administration practice.

  • What Is CoARA? Research Assessment Reform Guide

    CoARA — the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment — is a research-sector coalition, launched in Brussels on 1 December 2022, that commits signatory universities, funders and academies to reform how research and researchers are evaluated. Signatories agree to move away from journal-based metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor and h-index, and toward qualitative peer review supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators, under a ten-commitment Agreement and a mandatory one-year action plan.

    CoARA is coara — the coalition’s name is almost always written and searched as the acronym. It is distinct from, though philosophically aligned with, the earlier US-originated DORA declaration. This guide sets out CoARA’s founding, its principles, how it differs from DORA, and the practical steps an institution takes to join and report progress.

    What is CoARA and why was it created?

    CoARA is a coalition of research funders, universities, national academies, and assessment authorities that have agreed a common Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. The Agreement text was finalised in July 2022 by a working group convened under the impetus of the European Commission, Science Europe and the European University Association, and the coalition was formally launched at a founding event in Brussels on 1 December 2022, with an initial cohort of over 350 signatories.

    CoARA’s stated purpose is to correct research assessment practice that over-relies on publication counts and citation-based metrics, at the expense of recognising open science practices, data stewardship, mentoring, and other contributions. Its secretariat is hosted by the European Science Foundation (ESF), which manages the coalition’s day-to-day operations and coordinates the CoARA Boost Horizon Europe capacity-building project.

    How does CoARA differ from DORA?

    CoARA and DORA share a target — inappropriate use of journal-level metrics in research evaluation — but they are separate initiatives with different origins, scope and mechanisms. DORA (the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) was launched in 2013 by the American Society for Cell Biology and asks signatories to stop using Journal Impact Factor as a proxy for the quality of individual articles or researchers. CoARA was launched nearly a decade later, in December 2022, out of a European Commission-adjacent policy process, and goes further by requiring a written, time-bound action plan.

    Feature CoARA DORA
    Launched 1 December 2022 2013
    Origin European Commission / Science Europe / EUA policy process American Society for Cell Biology (San Francisco)
    Secretariat European Science Foundation Independent DORA organisation
    Formal commitments 10 commitments in a signed Agreement Declaration principles, no numbered commitment list
    Action plan required Yes — within 1 year of signing No formal action plan requirement
    Governance tiers Signatory and Member (Member votes in General Assembly) Single signatory tier

    In practice, most CoARA signatories are also DORA signatories — the two agreements are treated as complementary rather than competing, and institutions frequently cite both when describing their responsible-metrics policy.

    What are CoARA’s core commitments and principles?

    The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment sets out ten commitments that every signatory and member accepts. The headline commitments require signatories to:

    • Recognise the diversity of contributions to, and careers in, research in accordance with the needs and nature of the research.
    • Base research assessment primarily on qualitative evaluation, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators.
    • Abandon inappropriate uses in research assessment of journal- and publication-based metrics, in particular the Journal Impact Factor and h-index.
    • Avoid the use of rankings of research organisations in research assessment.

    CoARA describes its overarching vision as recognising diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research, with peer review as the essential mechanism, rather than treating metrics as a substitute for judgement.

    How do institutions join CoARA and report progress?

    Joining CoARA has two tiers, and the distinction matters for governance rights. An organisation first becomes a signatory by signing the Agreement, publicly endorsing the ten commitments. A signatory can then apply to upgrade to full Member status, which brings the right to participate in the General Assembly, vote on Steering Board candidates, and take part in collective decision-making. There are no membership fees at either tier.

    Both signatories and members are required to submit an action plan within one year of signing, setting out concrete, time-bound steps to implement the ten commitments locally. Progress is then reported through periodic updates to that action plan rather than a single one-off filing — for example, founding member DARIAH ERIC published a progress report covering 2022–2024 alongside an updated action plan for 2025–2027, documenting achievements against its original milestones.

    1. Review the Agreement text and confirm institutional sign-off.
    2. Sign as a signatory (or apply for Member status if governance participation is needed).
    3. Publish an action plan within 12 months, mapped to the ten commitments.
    4. Join a relevant Working Group or National Chapter to share implementation practice.
    5. Update the action plan periodically and publish progress reports.

    Who are CoARA’s members and working groups?

    CoARA’s signatory base has grown substantially since the December 2022 launch: from an initial cohort of roughly 350 organisations to more than 800 research-performing organisations, funders, assessment authorities, professional societies and their associations by 2026, according to the coalition’s own signatory listing. UNESCO’s Open Science programme separately describes CoARA as convening a comparable population of research-performing entities, research funding institutions, and research infrastructure bodies working on reform in the context of open science.

    Substantive reform work happens through Working Groups (covering topics such as narrative CVs and responsible use of metrics) and National Chapters, regional networks — including a UK National Chapter — that let organisations contextualise reform to local academic systems. CoARA’s first Working Groups and National Chapters were formed in autumn 2023, following an open call to members.

    Frequently asked questions

    What does CoARA stand for?

    CoARA stands for the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. It is a coalition of research funders, universities, and assessment bodies that have signed an Agreement committing them to reform how research and researchers are evaluated, moving away from metrics-only assessment.

    Is CoARA the same as DORA?

    No. CoARA and DORA are separate initiatives with shared aims. DORA launched in 2013 in the United States and targets journal-metric misuse; CoARA launched in December 2022 from a European policy process and additionally requires signatories to publish a formal action plan.

    What is a CoARA action plan?

    A CoARA action plan is a written, time-bound document that a signatory or member must publish within one year of signing, setting out the concrete steps it will take to implement the Agreement’s ten commitments, followed by periodic progress updates.

    How many organisations have signed the CoARA agreement?

    CoARA’s signatory base has grown from roughly 350 organisations at its December 2022 launch to more than 800 by 2026, spanning universities, funders, national academies and research infrastructure bodies across dozens of countries.

    What this means for research administrators

    For research administration, library, and grants-office teams, CoARA membership is not a symbolic gesture — it is a governance commitment with a deadline. The one-year action-plan requirement forces institutions to audit hiring, promotion, and grant-review criteria for inappropriate metric use, and to document a credible replacement process built on qualitative peer review.

    Institutions already engaged in responsible-metrics work through research administration policy reviews are well placed to convert existing DORA commitments into a CoARA-compliant action plan, since the two frameworks are complementary rather than contradictory. Where an institution has no prior DORA history, the CoARA action plan effectively becomes the first formal audit of assessment criteria across the research lifecycle.

    Outlook: where CoARA reform goes next

    CoARA’s growth from a 350-signatory launch coalition to a body of more than 800 organisations within roughly three and a half years signals that action-plan-based reform, not declaration-only signing, is becoming the expected model for European and internationally-linked research assessment reform. National Chapters and Working Groups are the mechanism through which this scales beyond individual institutional pledges into shared, auditable practice — and institutions evaluating research administration reform should treat the CoARA action plan cycle as a recurring governance obligation, not a one-time compliance exercise.

  • DORA vs CoARA: Two Routes to Reform Compared

    DORA and CoARA are the two leading movements for reforming how research and researchers are evaluated, but they take structurally different routes to get there: DORA is an individual and institutional pledge against journal-based metrics, while CoARA is a formal coalition agreement requiring signatories to file a time-bound action plan. Both aim to move assessment away from proxies like the Journal Impact Factor and toward qualitative, peer-reviewed judgement of research contributions.

    The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a global advocacy initiative, founded in San Francisco in 2012, that asks signatories to stop using journal-based metrics as a proxy for the quality of individual researchers’ work. The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) is a European-rooted membership coalition, launched in 2022, whose signatories commit to ten core principles and must submit a formal reform action plan within twelve months. For a research office deciding where to commit institutional resources, the choice is rarely either/or — but the two frameworks demand very different levels of operational follow-through, and understanding that gap is the first step to choosing correctly.

    What is DORA?

    DORA — the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment — began as a set of conversations at the American Society for Cell Biology’s 2012 Annual Meeting in San Francisco. It was formalised as a Declaration in 2013 and became a standalone organisation in 2018, according to DORA’s own institutional history published on sfdora.org.

    DORA’s central ask is narrow and specific: institutions and individuals commit not to use journal-based metrics — chiefly the Journal Impact Factor — as a proxy for the quality of an individual researcher’s contributions in hiring, tenure and funding decisions. Signing is a public, low-friction act. There is no mandatory action plan and no membership fee; DORA instead supports change through advocacy, case studies and practical tools such as its Reformscape database of assessment policies.

    What is CoARA?

    CoARA is a collective of research organisations, funders, assessment authorities and professional societies that have agreed a common direction for research assessment reform, set out in the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA), published in July 2022. As of mid-2026, over 800 organisations have signed the Agreement, according to CoARA’s own membership page.

    Unlike DORA, CoARA distinguishes between two tiers of participation. Signatories publicly endorse the Agreement’s ten core commitments and agree to submit a reform action plan within one year of signing. Members additionally gain voting rights in CoARA’s General Assembly and can shape governance through the Steering Board. Both tiers are free — there are no CoARA membership fees. The Coalition is governed by a General Assembly and Steering Board, with its Secretariat hosted by the European Science Foundation (ESF), and it runs a Horizon Europe-funded capacity-building initiative, CoARA Boost, to support members through implementation.

    DORA vs CoARA: key differences

    The two initiatives are complementary rather than competing, but they differ sharply on scope, accountability and governance structure.

    Feature DORA CoARA
    Origin 2012 (Declaration), organisation since 2018 2022, via the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment
    Geographic centre Global, US-founded European-led, global membership
    Primary focus Eliminating journal-based metrics (e.g. Journal Impact Factor) as a quality proxy Systemic reform of research assessment across outputs, practices and careers
    Commitment level Public declaration; no mandatory follow-up 10 core commitments plus a mandatory action plan within 12 months
    Participation tiers Single tier — signatories Two tiers — signatories and voting members
    Governance DORA organisation, advocacy and tools-led General Assembly, Steering Board, Secretariat hosted by the European Science Foundation
    Local structures Community-of-practice groups (e.g. funders, initiatives) Working Groups and National Chapters (e.g. UK National Chapter, co-led by Loughborough, Strathclyde and Swansea universities)

    The two organisations are not operating in isolation from each other. DORA sits as an institutional observer on the CoARA Steering Board, and CoARA participates in DORA’s National and International Initiatives Community of Practice. On 3–4 December 2025, the two initiatives issued a joint statement at the EU Presidency High-Level Conference on Reforming Research Assessment (CERRA) in Copenhagen, marking CoARA’s third anniversary and formally describing their work as complementary rather than overlapping.

    Which framework should a research office sign?

    The decision depends on how much operational capacity a research office can commit, not on which framework is “better”.

    • Sign DORA first if the institution needs a fast, low-cost public statement against misuse of the Journal Impact Factor in hiring, tenure and promotion — useful as a first move for offices without dedicated reform capacity.
    • Join CoARA if the institution can resource a structured, time-bound reform process — CoARA’s requirement to publish an action plan within 12 months forces assessment policy from principle into practice, with peer support through Working Groups and National Chapters.
    • Sign both, as a growing number of UK institutions have done. The University of Edinburgh, for example, lists itself as a signatory of both DORA and CoARA as part of its responsible research assessment programme.

    One implementation detail is often overlooked: CoARA’s core commitments explicitly call for “recognising the diversity of contributions to, and careers in, research” — a principle that is difficult to operationalise without a mechanism for recording who did what on a given output. The CRediT contributor role taxonomy, which CASRAI originated in 2014 and which is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, is one of the few practical tools that lets an institution move from CoARA’s principle of contribution diversity to a granular, auditable record of it — a link that neither framework’s own documentation makes explicit, but that research administration offices implementing CoARA action plans should factor into their tooling decisions.

    Frequently asked questions

    What is CoARA research assessment?

    CoARA research assessment refers to the evaluation practices reformed under the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, which asks signatories to base judgement on peer review and qualitative assessment of diverse outputs, rather than publication counts or journal prestige, backed by a mandatory action plan.

    What are the DORA principles?

    DORA’s core principle is to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics, particularly the Journal Impact Factor, as a proxy for the quality of an individual researcher’s work in funding, hiring, and promotion decisions, focusing evaluation instead on the scientific content of the output itself.

    What does CoARA stand for and who leads it?

    CoARA stands for the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. It is governed by a General Assembly and Steering Board, with administrative coordination from a Secretariat hosted by the European Science Foundation (ESF).

    Can an institution sign both DORA and CoARA?

    Yes. The two frameworks are formally complementary, not competing — DORA holds observer status on the CoARA Steering Board, and institutions such as the University of Edinburgh are signatories of both as part of a single responsible-assessment programme.

    Both movements are converging rather than diverging. With DORA now an institutional observer inside CoARA’s governance and the two bodies issuing joint statements at EU policy conferences, research offices should treat the DORA-versus-CoARA question less as a binary choice and more as a sequencing decision: a quick public pledge against metric misuse, followed — where capacity allows — by the structured, accountable reform pathway that CoARA’s action-plan requirement enforces.

  • What Is CoARA? The Coalition Reshaping Research Assessment

    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?

    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.