Tag: San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

  • Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information: What Signing Means for Institutions

    The Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information is a voluntary commitment framework, launched on 16 April 2024, under which universities, funders and research infrastructures pledge to make the metadata behind research — publications, datasets, grants, contributor and organisation records — open by default rather than locked inside proprietary databases. Signing creates no legal obligation; it is a public statement of intent, tracked via a published signatory list and reinforced by an annual conference, next meeting in Berlin on 24–25 November 2026.

    The barcelona declaration on open research information is a companion reform track to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA): those two reform how research is assessed; this Declaration reforms the underlying information supply chain any assessment depends on.

    What is the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information?

    The Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information is an international policy statement calling on organisations that carry out, fund or evaluate research to make “research information” — metadata about publications, datasets, software, funding and contributors — open, interoperable and FAIR by default. It was prepared by more than 25 research information specialists meeting in Barcelona in November 2023, hosted by the SIRIS Foundation, and launched publicly on 16 April 2024.

    Coordination sits with Bianca Kramer (Sesame Open Science), Cameron Neylon (Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative) and Ludo Waltman (Leiden University’s CWTS). Since January 2025, CWTS, Crossref and the SIRIS Foundation have jointly funded a coordination office for three years — an operating structure, not a one-off open letter.

    • As of this research (July 2026), the published signatory list names 146 organisations across 34 countries, plus international bodies such as the Coimbra Group and YERUN.
    • “Supporters” — infrastructure providers including ROR, DOAJ, COAR, LIBER, SPARC Europe and PLOS — back the Declaration without being signatories themselves.
    • Signatories span single universities (Leiden, Edinburgh, Bristol, Utrecht), national consortia (Udice, Universities of the Netherlands) and funders (Wellcome Trust, Austrian Science Fund, Dutch Research Council).

    Open, closed and restricted: how the Declaration defines research information

    “Research information” is the Declaration’s term for metadata — not the underlying publication, dataset or software itself, but data about it: titles, abstracts, author and affiliation data, funding details, and organisation identifiers. The Declaration treats openness of this metadata as a spectrum rather than a binary switch.

    Category Definition (per the Declaration) Named examples
    Open research information Free to access and free of reuse restrictions; ideally FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) and carrying a CC0 waiver OpenAlex, OpenCitations, OpenAIRE, Crossref, DataCite, ORCID
    Closed research information Locked inside proprietary infrastructure with severe reuse restrictions, typically paywalled Web of Science, Scopus (both named directly by the Declaration’s background text)
    Restricted (conditionally open) research information Information that cannot ethically be made fully open — chiefly for privacy reasons — and should instead be handled under “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” Aggregated, privacy-sensitive contributor or assessment data, assessed case by case against relevant regulation

    This is not an all-or-nothing pledge. Signing requires a default presumption of openness, with narrow, justified exceptions — not publishing everything.

    The four commitments signatories make

    Every signatory commits to the same four points, set out on the Declaration’s commitments page, moving from internal default to supplier requirements to infrastructure funding to collective governance.

    • Commitment 1 — openness by default. Research information used (for assessment, funding, discovery) and produced (about its own activities) becomes open by default, with privacy-based exceptions handled case by case.
    • Commitment 2 — open-enabling systems. Publishing platforms and internal current research information systems (CRIS) must make relevant metadata exportable and open, using standard identifiers.
    • Commitment 3 — infrastructure sustainability. The organisation contributes fairly to the financial stability and governance of open scholarly infrastructures, expecting them to follow the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI).
    • Commitment 4 — collective action. The organisation backs a proposed Coalition for Open Research Information, coordinating with related initiatives rather than acting alone.

    How it fits with CoARA, DORA and the European Research Area

    The Barcelona Declaration is deliberately positioned as complementary to, not competing with, the research-assessment reform movement. Its own background text cites DORA, supported by roughly 3,000 organisations and more than 20,000 individuals globally, and CoARA, whose agreement more than 600 organisations have joined, as evidence that “support for open research information is rapidly increasing.”

    Framework Primary focus Launched Reported scale
    Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information Openness of the metadata underlying research assessment and discovery 16 Apr 2024 146 signatories, 34+ countries
    DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) Reforming how research outputs and researchers are evaluated 2012 ~3,000 organisations, 20,000+ individuals
    CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment) Reforming assessment criteria and career-evaluation practice, largely EU-driven 2022 600+ organisations

    The overlap with the European Research Area policy agenda is direct. The EU Council has adopted conclusions on research assessment and open science stating that “data and bibliographic databases used for research assessment should, in principle, be openly accessible” — language the Declaration cites as its own rationale. For institutions already reporting into CoARA or Horizon Europe open-science requirements, signing supplies the open-infrastructure layer responsible assessment reform depends on, not a separate compliance track.

    What signing meant for The Guild and Maastricht University

    Two recent signings show what commitment looks like at different institutional scales.

    The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, a network of research-intensive universities across Europe, joined as an international signatory (announced 28 May 2026) — committing its member network collectively to advocate for open research information, rather than acting through one campus policy.

    Maastricht University signed on 12 June 2026, when Rector Magnificus Jan Smits put his name to the Declaration during the first Open Science Festival Limburg. UM had already taken a concrete Commitment-2-style step beforehand: it invested in an OpenAlex partner subscription and announced it will end its Scopus licence from 2027, explicitly framing the move as reducing reliance on closed, proprietary research information systems. UM says the Declaration reinforces its existing Open Science and Recognition & Rewards ambitions and will keep shaping its reporting and assessment practices.

    Frequently asked questions

    What is the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information?

    It is a voluntary policy declaration, launched 16 April 2024, under which research organisations, funders and infrastructures commit to making metadata about publications, data, software and funding open by default. It has no regulatory force; its four commitments are tracked through a public signatory list rather than enforced sanctions.

    Is signing the Barcelona Declaration legally binding?

    No. Like DORA and CoARA, it is a principle-based commitment, not a regulation or contract. Signatories self-report progress, and accountability comes from public visibility — the signatory list, national networks and the annual conference — rather than from any enforcement or certification mechanism.

    How does the Barcelona Declaration differ from CoARA and DORA?

    DORA and CoARA target how researchers and outputs are assessed; the Barcelona Declaration targets the metadata infrastructure any assessment relies on. Institutions frequently sign more than one — the commitments are explicitly framed as reinforcing each other, not substitutes.

    Implications for research offices weighing whether to sign

    For a research administration office, signing is a two-stage decision. First, an audit question: does current research information — CRIS exports, assessment data sources, publisher metadata agreements — already lean on closed, subscription-gated infrastructure such as Web of Science or Scopus, and what would shifting toward open alternatives (OpenAlex, OpenAIRE, Crossref, ORCID, ROR) cost operationally?

    Second, a governance question: signing is public, and Commitment 2 carries procurement implications — new publisher and system contracts should require exportable, open metadata rather than closed defaults. Institutions already committed to CoARA or Horizon Europe open-science requirements will find the overlap works in their favour.

    The 2026 conference — themed “Aligning policy and practical implementation,” held 24–25 November 2026 at the Leibniz Association headquarters in Berlin and online, with its call for proposals open until 1 September 2026 — signals where the Declaration is heading: from a statement of intent toward shared, documented implementation practice. Research offices that sign now join that practice-sharing track from the start, rather than adopting a more settled framework later with less influence over how it develops.

  • DORA Signatories: A Checklist for Institutions

    DORA signatories are institutions, funders, publishers, or individuals who have formally endorsed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment — a public commitment to stop treating journal-based metrics like the Journal Impact Factor as a proxy for research quality in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. Signing is voluntary and unaudited: it obliges a signatory to publish a statement of intent, not to hit a fixed reform deadline.

    DORA (the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) is a set of research-assessment reform principles, published on 13 May 2013, that discourages substituting journal-based metrics for qualitative judgement of individual research contributions. Note: this is unrelated to the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act, which regulates financial-sector ICT risk and happens to share the same acronym — this article covers only the research-assessment declaration.

    What Do DORA Signatories Actually Commit To?

    A DORA signatory commits to a principle, not a procedure. The declaration originated from a December 2012 meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology and was published on 13 May 2013. Its core ask is narrow and specific: do not use the Journal Impact Factor, or any journal-level metric, “as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles” in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.

    Beyond that central pledge, signatories are asked to:

    • Articulate explicit criteria for hiring, tenure, and promotion that credit scientific content over the venue of publication
    • Consider a broad range of research outputs — including datasets, software, and preprints — not only journal articles
    • Publish a statement outlining how the organisation intends to implement DORA’s principles

    DORA’s own registry records over 27,000 individual and organisational signatories across 174 countries, according to the live signer count maintained at sfdora.org. Notable organisational signatories include the seven UK Research Councils under UKRI and, since May 2020, Springer Nature — the first major research publisher to sign.

    How Does DORA’s Commitment Differ from CoARA’s?

    DORA and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) are often mentioned together, but their signatory obligations are not equivalent. DORA asks institutions to endorse a principle and publish a statement; CoARA asks institutions to commit to a structured, time-bound implementation process. CoARA’s Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment was published in July 2022 and has attracted more than 800 signing organisations, including funders, universities, and learned societies.

    Feature DORA (San Francisco Declaration) CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment)
    Founding document Declaration published 13 May 2013 Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, published July 2022
    Core ask Stop using journal-level metrics as a proxy for article or researcher quality Adopt 10 core commitments covering criteria, procedures, and tools for assessment
    Reporting requirement Public statement required for new organisational signatories since November 2022; no fixed deadline Action plan required within one year of signing
    Oversight Not an accrediting body; does not audit signatories Governed by a General Assembly and Steering Board; Secretariat hosted by the European Science Foundation
    Reported signatories 27,000+ individuals and organisations in 174 countries 800+ organisations

    In practice, DORA functions as a values statement institutions can sign quickly, while CoARA functions as an implementation programme with a governance structure and a submission deadline. Many organisations — including several UK universities and Science Europe members — hold both, using DORA as the founding principle and CoARA as the operational framework.

    What Should an Institution Check Before Signing DORA?

    Because DORA is unaudited, the real work happens internally, before and after the signature. Institutional leaders should treat signing as the start of a governance exercise, not the end of one.

    • Confirm HR, promotion committees, and funding panels understand what “not using the Journal Impact Factor” means in practice for their existing criteria
    • Audit current hiring, tenure, and grant-review documentation for explicit or implicit journal-name dependence
    • Draft (or update) the public statement now required for organisational signatories, per DORA’s Engagement and Outreach Policy, approved 2024
    • Decide whether to pursue CoARA membership alongside DORA, given CoARA’s one-year action-plan deadline
    • Name an internal owner for ongoing implementation — since DORA does not audit compliance, accountability has to be self-imposed

    Institutions that skip this internal groundwork risk the outcome DORA itself has flagged publicly: a signatory whose day-to-day assessment practice has not actually changed. Reform requires deliberate revision of hiring and promotion documentation, not a signature alone.

    Common Questions About DORA Signatories

    What does DORA stand for?

    DORA stands for the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, a set of research-assessment reform principles published on 13 May 2013. It is unrelated to the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act, which regulates financial-sector ICT risk and shares the same acronym. Readers researching signatory obligations should confirm they mean the research-assessment declaration.

    What is the difference between a DORA signatory and a CoARA signatory?

    A DORA signatory commits to principles against using journal-level metrics in hiring, promotion, and funding, with no mandatory reporting deadline. A CoARA signatory commits to 10 explicit reform commitments and must submit a public action plan within one year of signing — making CoARA the more prescriptive route.

    Does DORA apply to UK research institutions?

    Yes. UKRI and each of its seven constituent Research Councils are DORA signatories in their own right, and Science Europe reported that 60% of its member organisations had signed DORA by March 2023. DORA carries no jurisdictional restriction — any UK university, funder, or publisher can sign voluntarily.

    What happens after an institution signs DORA?

    Signing is only the start: organisational signatories must publish a statement describing how they will implement DORA’s principles, under DORA’s Engagement and Outreach Policy (approved 2024). DORA does not audit signatories or revoke signatory status, so ongoing implementation depends entirely on internal institutional governance.

    What This Means for Institutional Strategy

    The practical distinction for institutional leaders is one of pace versus prescription. DORA delivers a values commitment that can be adopted in weeks and signals good faith to researchers and funders. CoARA delivers a structured reform pathway with a governance body, working groups, and a one-year deliverable, better suited to institutions ready to formalise assessment reform as a programme rather than a statement.

    Research administrators — through bodies such as ARMA, EARMA, and INORMS — increasingly treat the two as complementary rather than competing: DORA as the founding principle cited in policy documents, CoARA as the operational mechanism for tracking and reporting progress. Institutions weighing either commitment should map both sets of obligations against existing hiring, promotion, and funding criteria before signing either declaration, so that the public statement reflects a change already under way rather than a promise made in advance of it.