Responsible Research Assessment

Two Creative Colleagues Using Laptop to Discuss Work Project at Office

Responsible Research Assessment and DORA

The University of Cumbria is a signatory to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Developed in 2012, DORA is a global initiative that seeks to improve the ways in which research is evaluated. Its core aim is to shift emphasis away from the publication venue or journal-based metrics, and towards assessing research on its own merits.

In particular, DORA discourages the use of journal-level indicators, such as Journal Impact Factors (JIFs), as proxies for the quality of individual research outputs or researchers. Instead, it promotes a more balanced and transparent approach to evaluation.

What Our Commitment Means in Practice

By being a DORA signatory, the University commits to embedding fair and responsible research assessment practices across recruitment, appraisal, promotion and funding decisions. This includes:

Being explicit about the criteria used in decision-making processes.
Assessing research on its own merits, using a broad range of qualitative and quantitative indicators appropriate to the discipline.
Avoiding reliance on journal-based metrics as proxies for quality.
Recognising and valuing a diverse range of research outputs, including datasets, software, practice-based outputs, and policy, societal or cultural contributions, alongside traditional publications.

These principles align closely with the direction of travel for REF 2029 and are being actively embedded within our institutional preparations.

Implications for Individual Researchers

Colleagues are encouraged to reflect DORA principles both when presenting their own work and when assessing the work of others.

When preparing track record statements, promotion cases or funding applications, researchers should focus on the intrinsic quality, rigour and contribution of their work, and articulate clearly its significance and impact. The venue of publication should not be presented as a proxy for quality.

Similarly, when participating in recruitment, appraisal or promotions panels, colleagues are expected to exercise expert judgement that:

Considers the content and contribution of research outputs rather than journal-level metrics.
Recognises the diversity of disciplinary practices.
Reflects on potential cognitive and systemic biases in evaluation processes.
Values the broad range of impacts that research may generate.

Quantitative indicators may be used where appropriate to the discipline, but only in context and in combination with qualitative evidence and peer review. They should support, not replace, expert judgement.

Further Guidance

Colleagues may find the following resources helpful:

The DORA website, which provides practical guidance and case studies on implementing responsible research assessment.
An introductory Responsible Research Assessment (RRA) course is available to all colleagues. This free, self-paced resource provides a foundation in RRA principles, explores approaches such as Narrative CVs, and offers practical examples to support more responsible and effective evaluation practices across research, leadership and professional services roles.
The Metrics Toolkit, which outlines the appropriate uses and limitations of different types of research metrics.

Our commitment to DORA reflects the University’s broader values of inclusivity, transparency and academic excellence, and underpins our approach to research culture and assessment across the institution.