/prod01/channel_2/media/uniofsuffolk/website/content-assets/images/studentsx2fstaff-on-campus/Students-outside-WF-Building-(3)-Dec-2021-Steve-Wright.jpg)
Responsible and Fair Research Assessment
The University of Suffolk has officially signed the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), a European-led initiative with global outreach.
The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) aims to create a unified direction for research assessment reform while preserving the independence of participating organisations. Launched on January 1, 2022, the coalition promotes the improvement of research evaluation practices worldwide. Signing the Agreement is an opportunity to signal publicly the willingness of our University to reform research assessment along the agreed Principles, and to implement the agreed Commitments according to the agreed timeframe. 
CoARA is an international effort to transform how research is assessed. Its primary goal is to promote a research evaluation system that is inclusive, transparent, and responsible. The coalition seeks to establish common guidelines for reforming research assessment, focusing on improving the quality and impact of research while respecting the autonomy of individual organisations. CoARA champions diverse research outputs and fair assessment processes, helping the academic community enhance its research culture and standards.
CoARA envisions an assessment system that recognises the variety of contributions, activities, and practices that drive research quality and impact. It emphasises qualitative judgments, with peer review playing a crucial role, and supports this with the responsible use of quantitative metrics.
By signing the CoARA Agreement, the University of Suffolk demonstrates its commitment to reforming research assessment in alignment with CoARA's principles and takes on the obligation to implement these changes.
CoARA has outlined ten commitments for its signatories:
- Recognise the diversity of contributions to research and research careers, reflecting the specific needs and nature of the research.
- Prioritise qualitative evaluation in research assessment, with peer review as the central method, supplemented by responsible use of quantitative indicators.
- Eliminate the inappropriate use of publication metrics like Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and h-index in research evaluation.
- Avoid using rankings of research organisations in assessment processes.
- Allocate adequate resources to support reform in research assessment and drive organisational change.
- Continuously review and improve research assessment criteria, tools, and methods.
- Raise awareness and provide clear guidance on research assessment reforms, ensuring transparency in criteria and processes.
- Share experiences and best practices within and outside the coalition to foster mutual learning.
- Report progress on implementing the commitments and adhering to CoARA’s principles.
- Ensure research assessment practices are informed by evidence and make data publicly available for evaluation and analysis.
By the end of 2025, the University of Suffolk plans to begin reviewing its research assessment criteria, tools, and processes. Over the coming years, the university will work toward fulfilling CoARA's commitments. The university will conduct self-assessments and collaborate with other CoARA signatories to share knowledge, address challenges, and learn from their experiences.
The agreement is open for signature to organisations from across the world. As of 15 October 2024, 796 organisations have signed the agreement.
Stay updated on the latest news by following CoARA's social media outlets:
X (Twitter): @CoARAssessment
LinkedIn: Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment
Mastodon: @CoARAssessment
YouTube: @CoARAssessment
Discover the latest news from the Coalition!
The San Francisco Declaration (DORA) aims to reform the way academic research quality is assessed and measured. University of Suffolk is committed to the principles of DORA and is working with partners to implement them.
DORA’s recommendations urge institutions to stop using journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors (JIF), as a proxy for the quality of individual research articles when evaluating researchers for hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. It emphasises that research should be assessed based on its intrinsic merits rather than the reputation of the journal in which it is published.
DORA encourages universities, researchers, and other stakeholders to take advantage of the opportunities offered by online publication and to be transparent about the criteria used in hiring, tenure, and promotion processes. It underscores that, particularly for early-career researchers, the content and quality of the research itself are far more important than publication metrics or the journal's identity.
Additionally, DORA advocates for a more comprehensive approach to research assessment, recommending that institutions value a broad range of research outputs, including datasets, software, and other contributions. It also encourages the use of diverse impact measures, such as qualitative indicators that reflect the influence of research on policy, practice, and societal outcomes.
Universities who sign DORA should:
- be explicit about the criteria used to reach hiring, tenure and promotion decisions, clearly highlighting, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.
- for the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.
Researchers should:
- make assessments based on scientific content rather than publication metrics, when involved in committees making decisions about funding, hiring, tenure, or promotion.
- wherever appropriate, cite primary literature in which observations are first reported rather than reviews in order to give credit where credit is due.
- use a range of article metrics and indicators on personal/supporting statements, as evidence of the impact of individual published articles and other research outputs.
- challenge research assessment practices that rely inappropriately on Journal Impact Factors (JIF), and promote and teach best practice that focuses on the value and influence of specific research outputs.