CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: dora coara

  • Research Assessment Reform: Why Collective Action Beats Solo Signatories

    Research assessment reform needs collective action because hiring, promotion and funding criteria are set independently by thousands of institutions — a single university dropping journal-based metrics gains nothing if every competing institution, funder and publisher still rewards them. Recent research-on-research literature frames this explicitly as a collective action problem: individual declarations such as DORA signal intent, but only coordinated, system-wide commitments — the model CoARA is built around — actually rewrite the incentives that determine careers.

    A collective action problem in research assessment is a situation where no single institution can achieve reform on its own without risking a competitive disadvantage, so change only happens when many actors move together under a shared, verifiable commitment.

    What Is the Collective Action Problem in Research Assessment Reform?

    A 2025 study in Minerva by sociologist Alexander Rushforth, “Research Assessment Reform as Collective Action Problem,” argues that research evaluation change cannot be reduced to individual institutional choice. Rushforth traces this through the Netherlands’ national “Recognition and Rewards” initiative, formally launched in 2019 to coordinate system-wide changes in assessment practice across the Dutch science system.

    The framing matters because it shifts the diagnosis. If assessment culture were simply a matter of institutional willpower, a DORA signature would be sufficient. If it is instead a coordination failure — where no actor can safely move first — then reform requires simultaneous, mutually reinforcing commitments from institutions, funders and publishers together.

    Why Doesn’t an Individual DORA Signature Change Hiring Criteria?

    The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), launched in 2012, asks signatories to stop using journal-based metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor as a proxy for the quality of individual articles or researchers. Signing carries no binding enforcement mechanism, and DORA itself has long acknowledged that the harder work begins after signature — its 2019 guidance “You’ve signed DORA, now what?” explicitly frames hiring, promotion and funding criteria as the next, unfinished step.

    Two structural problems keep that step unfinished when institutions act alone:

    • First-mover risk. An institution that stops counting journal prestige in tenure review can be undercut in recruitment and rankings by peers who have not changed, because researcher CVs are still read against metric-based expectations elsewhere.
    • Interoperability failure. Where assessment criteria diverge sharply between institutions and countries, researcher mobility suffers — a candidate assessed holistically at one university may be filtered out by a metrics-based shortlist at the next.

    Neither problem is solved by any single signature. Both require peer institutions, funders and disciplinary societies to move on a broadly shared timetable.

    How Does CoARA’s Coordinated Model Differ From Individual Declarations?

    The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) was formed around the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, which the European Commission signed and endorsed alongside DORA on 8 November 2022. Unlike a one-off declaration, CoARA requires member organisations to commit to a shared action plan with defined milestones, reported progress and working groups that develop common tools and criteria across institutions — moving assessment reform from individual pledge to managed, collective process.

    That coordination logic was reinforced on 4 December 2025, when CoARA and DORA released a joint statement on aligning their respective reform efforts rather than running parallel, uncoordinated campaigns. Science Europe’s April 2026 position statement, “Connecting Open Science and Research Assessment Reform,” makes the same point from the funder side: it treats open science and assessment reform as “mutually reinforcing and interdependent drivers of research cultures,” explicitly a multi-actor framing rather than an institution-by-institution one.

    Dimension Individual DORA signature Coordinated (CoARA-style) commitment
    Enforcement None — declaration of intent only Action plan with milestones and reporting
    Hiring/promotion criteria Left to each institution’s own timetable Shared working groups developing common criteria
    Competitive risk to first movers High — one institution changes alone Reduced — peers move on a shared timetable
    Researcher mobility Fragmented across institutions/countries Greater interoperability of criteria sought

    What Does the Dutch “Recognition and Rewards” Case Show?

    Rushforth’s analysis of Recognition and Rewards found that the initiative succeeded in uniting support from multiple influential national stakeholders — universities, funders and academic hospitals moving together — precisely because it was designed as a coordinated, system-wide commitment rather than a set of separate institutional pledges. It also documents genuine friction: critics raised concerns about the Netherlands “going it alone” internationally, illustrating that collective action problems exist at more than one level simultaneously — within a national system, and between that system and the rest of the world.

    The OECD’s April 2026 report “Reforming Research Assessment for Better Science” reaches a parallel conclusion at the international level, describing the current reform landscape as “a collective of organisations committed to reforming the assessment of research, researchers, and research organisations” — language that treats coordination, not individual compliance, as the operative unit of change.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Does Signing DORA Actually Change University Hiring Practices?

    Not by itself. DORA’s own post-signature guidance states that hiring, promotion and funding decisions require separate, deliberate policy changes after signature. A signature is a public commitment; rewritten criteria documents, reviewed by hiring and promotion committees, are the actual evidence of change.

    What Is CoARA and How Does It Differ From DORA?

    CoARA is a coalition of research funders, institutions, and organisations built around the 2022 Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. Unlike DORA’s single declaration, CoARA members commit to shared action plans, working groups and reported milestones — a coordination structure rather than a one-time pledge.

    Why Is Research Assessment Reform Described as a Collective Action Problem?

    Because no institution can safely change its own assessment criteria in isolation without risking a competitive disadvantage in recruitment and rankings. Research-on-research literature, including Rushforth’s 2025 Minerva study, argues reform requires simultaneous, coordinated commitments across many independent actors.

    Can One University Move Away From Metrics Without Being Disadvantaged?

    It can, but the Netherlands’ Recognition and Rewards case shows even a coordinated national effort faced criticism for “going it alone” relative to the rest of the world. A single institution acting without peer, funder and publisher alignment faces materially higher exposure to that same risk.

    What Should Institutions Actually Do Together?

    For research administration teams, the practical implication of the collective-action framing is direct: a DORA or CoARA signature belongs on a compliance checklist next to, not instead of, three coordination-dependent actions.

    1. Confirm hiring and promotion criteria documents have actually been rewritten, not merely a signature logged in a registry.
    2. Compare criteria against peer institutions in the same discipline and country to identify where first-mover risk is concentrated.
    3. Engage through CoARA working groups or equivalent sector bodies (ARMA, EARMA, INORMS) rather than drafting new criteria in isolation.

    Reform that stops at the signature stage produces a compliance artefact, not a changed incentive structure. The evidence from both the Dutch national case and the CoARA-DORA coordination model points the same way: assessment reform moves at the speed of the slowest coordinated group, not the fastest individual signatory. Institutions that treat their own criteria rewrite as contingent on parallel movement by peers, funders and publishers are following the pattern the research-on-research literature identifies as actually working — treating reform as a shared infrastructure problem, not a personal compliance decision.

  • 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.

  • CoARA Action Plan: Reform or Box-Ticking?

    CoARA’s action plan framework requires every signatory to publish, within a year of joining, a time-bound roadmap for reforming its research-assessment criteria, and to show progress at a five-year checkpoint due at the end of 2027. Three years after the Coalition’s November 2022 launch, membership has grown from roughly 100 founding organisations to more than 830 — yet CoARA’s own public tracker shows most signatories have not yet deposited a citable action plan, which is the real test of whether this is reform or box-ticking.

    The CoARA action plan is the documented, time-bound roadmap each Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment signatory must publish, setting out how it will revise the criteria, tools and processes it uses to evaluate research, researchers and research-performing organisations against the Agreement’s core commitments.

    What does the CoARA action plan actually require?

    The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA) obliges signatories to review or develop criteria, tools and processes against ten core commitments, and to record that process as an action plan with defined milestones. Under CoARA’s own guidance, the first plan is due within one year of signing (eighteen months for early signatories), with a further checkpoint at the end of 2027, by which point signatories must have completed at least one full review-and-development cycle.

    Crucially, CoARA imposes no fixed template. Organisations have “full freedom” in how they design their plan, and the Coalition explicitly asks signatories not to duplicate existing responsible-assessment work. That flexibility is defensible for a coalition spanning universities, funders, academies and research infrastructures — but it also means the Coalition has no standard unit for measuring whether commitments are being kept, only a request that plans be deposited publicly via a shared Zenodo collection.

    Has reform reached hiring, promotion and grant criteria?

    Some of the evidence is concrete. Loughborough University’s action plan, deposited in October 2023, embeds existing responsible research assessment practice into formal review criteria rather than treating CoARA as a new bolt-on process. Goldsmiths, University of London published a 2024–2029 plan explicitly tied to promotion and appraisal reform, and the University of Edinburgh deposited an updated plan in 2025 addressing how researchers and research-support staff are evaluated.

    Funders have moved too. Denmark’s Independent Research Fund (DFF) published an updated action plan in May 2025 that tracks delivery status against each commitment — a rare example of a signatory reporting progress rather than just intent. Italy’s national evaluation agency, ANVUR, has a 2024–2027 plan aimed at aligning national research-assessment criteria, not just one institution’s, with CoARA principles.

    These cases show the mechanism can produce real, checkable change in grant review and promotion documentation. The open question is how representative they are of the Coalition as a whole.

    How many signatories have actually filed an action plan?

    CoARA’s own live tracker — “Action Plans: Submitted & Pending to Date” — lists roughly 660 organisation entries with a due date for their first action plan. Of those, only around 136 carry an actual Zenodo DOI, meaning a plan has been deposited and made citable. The remaining entries, including many whose plans were originally due back in October 2023, are still marked “Pending” three years on.

    That is a completion rate of roughly one in five against CoARA’s own one-year deadline. It does not necessarily mean four in five signatories have done nothing internally — some may be reforming quietly without depositing paperwork — but it is the single clearest, most falsifiable indicator CoARA itself publishes, and it currently favours the “declaratory” reading of the Coalition’s progress over the “reformed” one.

    Metric Figure (CoARA live tracker, accessed July 2026)
    Organisation-level action plan entries tracked ~660
    Entries with a deposited, citable action plan (DOI issued) ~136 (≈21%)
    Entries still marked “Pending” ~514 (≈78%)
    Total current CoARA member organisations 834, across 60+ countries

    CoARA vs DORA: does history repeat itself?

    CoARA did not invent the credibility problem it now faces. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), launched in 2012 to curb inappropriate use of the Journal Impact Factor, has accumulated more than 27,000 individual and organisational signatures across 174 countries, according to sfdora.org’s own signer registry. Yet studies of research, promotion and tenure documents have repeatedly found continued reliance on journal-based metrics at institutions that formally signed DORA years earlier — a gap between signature and practice that critics now cite as the precedent CoARA risks repeating.

    CoARA’s design tries to close that gap by making the action plan, not the signature, the operative commitment, with a public deposit requirement and a 2027 checkpoint. A 2024 critique circulated on arXiv (Baccini et al.) argued the opposite risk: that shifting assessment toward qualitative, panel-based peer review could trade transparent metric-driven gatekeeping for a less transparent, harder-to-audit equivalent. Both critiques point to the same underlying test — not whether an organisation signs, but whether its actual review paperwork changes.

    Feature DORA (2012) CoARA (2022)
    Core ask Stop using Journal Impact Factor as a proxy for quality in funding, hiring and promotion Ten commitments on qualitative, diverse and open research assessment
    Accountability mechanism Voluntary signature; no mandatory public action plan Mandatory action plan within one year, deposited on Zenodo, checkpoint by end of 2027
    Current scale 27,000+ signatures, 174 countries (sfdora.org) 834 member organisations, 60+ countries (coara.org)
    Documented gap Continued JIF use found in signatory RPT criteria ~78% of due action-plan entries still “Pending” on CoARA’s own tracker

    Common questions about the CoARA action plan

    What is CoARA research?

    The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment is a membership body of universities, funders, academies and research infrastructures committed to reforming how research, researchers and research-performing organisations are evaluated. It operates under the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, signed from November 2022, which sets shared commitments rather than a single enforced standard.

    What are CoARA National Chapters?

    CoARA National Chapters are country- or region-specific groups, such as the chapter for Ireland, that help local signatories interpret the Agreement’s commitments in their own funding, promotion and language context. They provide practical support for drafting action plans and coordinate national-level alignment with funder policy, including engagement with existing metrics guidance such as DORA.

    Is CoARA the same as DORA?

    No. DORA is a narrower 2012 declaration focused specifically on removing inappropriate Journal Impact Factor use from assessment. CoARA is a broader 2022 coalition with ten commitments covering qualitative assessment, output diversity and open science, and it requires a public, time-bound action plan rather than a one-off signature.

    How many organisations have signed CoARA?

    CoARA’s live membership register lists 834 organisations across more than 60 countries as of mid-2026, up from just over 100 at the November 2022 launch. Growth in membership has significantly outpaced growth in verified, publicly deposited action plans over the same period.

    What this means for research administrators

    For institutional leaders and research-administration teams, CoARA membership is not self-certifying reform. Signing the Agreement creates a public commitment; only a deposited, dated action plan against the ten commitments creates an auditable one. Institutions that have not yet filed should treat the gap as reputational exposure, not paperwork.

    • Check whether your organisation’s action plan (if due) has been deposited to the CoARA Zenodo collection, not just drafted internally.
    • Map each commitment against a specific, named change to hiring, promotion or grant-review criteria — not a general statement of intent.
    • Use the 2027 checkpoint as an internal deadline for demonstrating at least one completed review-and-development cycle, in line with the ARRA’s own timeframe.

    Outlook: what would count as proof by 2027?

    CoARA’s five-year touchpoint at the end of 2027 is the moment the “reform or box-ticking” question gets a real answer. If the proportion of signatories with a deposited, dated action plan rises substantially from today’s roughly one-in-five, and if more funders publish delivery-tracked updates in the style of Denmark’s DFF, the declaratory reading weakens. If the Pending column stays this full, CoARA will have reproduced the exact credibility gap DORA has spent over a decade trying to close.

  • 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.