The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible
Abstract
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) was published in 2013 and described how funding agencies, institutions, publishers, organizations that supply metrics, and individual researchers could better evaluate the outputs of scientific research. Since then DORA has evolved into an active initiative that gives practical advice to institutions on new ways to assess and evaluate research. This article outlines a framework for driving institutional change that was developed at a meeting convened by DORA and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The framework has four broad goals: understanding the obstacles to changes in the way research is assessed; experimenting with different approaches; creating a shared vision when revising existing policies and practices; and communicating that vision on campus and beyond.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Adopting more substantive research assessment methods may be difficult [32], especially in settings where there is a lack of the required knowledge, trust, and social capital.”
From False authorship: an explorative case study around an AI-generated article published under my name (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Algra A, Koopman I, Snoek R. 2020. How young researchers can re-shape the evaluation of their work. Nature Index. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/how-young-researchers-can-re-shape-research-evaluation-universities [Accessed August 5, 2020].
- Belcher, 2018, Outcomes and impacts of development interventions: toward conceptual clarity, American Journal of Evaluation, 39, 478, 10.1177/1098214018765698 · DOI
- Benedictus, 2016, Fewer numbers, better science, Nature, 538, 453, 10.1038/538453a · DOI
- Bhalla, 2019, Strategies to improve equity in faculty hiring, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 30, 2744, 10.1091/mbc.E19-08-0476 · DOI
- Gibbs, 2016, Decoupling of the minority PhD talent pool and assistant professor hiring in medical school basic science departments in the US, eLife, 5, 10.7554/eLife.21393 · DOI
- Hatch, 2019, To fix research assessment, swap slogans for definitions, Nature, 576, 10.1038/d41586-019-03696-w · DOI
- HHMI. 2019. Review of HHMI investigators. https://www.hhmi.org/programs/biomedical-research/investigator-program/review [Accessed July 21, 2020].
- Lobet G. 2020. Fighting the impact factor one CV at a time. ecrLife. https://ecrlife.org/fighting-the-impact-factor-one-cv-at-a-time/ [Accessed July 21, 2020].
- McKiernan, 2019, Use of the journal impact factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations, eLife, 8, 10.7554/eLife.47338 · DOI
- Moore, 2017, "Excellence R Us": University research and the fetishisation of excellence, Palgrave Communications, 3, 1, 10.1057/PALCOMMS.2016.105 · DOI
- Niles, 2019, Why we publish where we do: faculty publishing values and their relationship to review promotion and tenure expectations, 10.1101/706622 · DOI
- Schimanski, 2018, The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: past, present, and future, F1000Research, 7, 10.12688/f1000research.16493.1 · DOI
- Schmid, 2017, Five years post-DORA: promoting best practices for research assessment, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 28, 2941, 10.1091/mbc.e17-08-0534 · DOI
- Stewart, 2018, An Inclusive Academy: Achieving Diversity and Excellence, 10.7551/mitpress/9766.001.0001 · DOI
- Strech, 2020, Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative, PLOS Biology, 18, 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000576 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology
Errington, T. M., Mathur, M., Soderberg, C. K., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E., & Nosek, B. A. (2021) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.71601 · Cited by 462
“Finally, journals, funders, and institutions can assess the research cultures and incentives that they create and maintain and introduce new policies that are valuesaligned to promote research rigor and transparency (Hatch and Curry, 2020; Nosek et al., 2015).”
BackgroundFalse authorship: an explorative case study around an AI-generated article published under my name
Spinellis, D. (2025) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-025-00165-z · Cited by 37
The White House’s march towards open science: implications for Canada
Moher, D., & Cobey, K. D. (2023) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2022-0242 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Hatch, A., & Curry, S.
- Venue
- eLife
- Publisher
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Published
- 2020-08-12
- Volume
- 9
- ISSN
- 2050-084X
- PMC
- PMC7423335
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review