In 2023 the GYA, the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) and the International Science Council (ISC) released the report “The Future of Research Evaluation: A Synthesis of Current Debates and Developments”.
Building on this, the GYA further cooperated with the IAP and the ISC looking into how science organisations, including Young Academies, go about assessing their members. We felt that, before discussing the necessity of reform at other organisations, it would be best to take stock of our own practices.
The new report “Snapshots of Reform – Researcher Evaluation within Science Organizations”, reflects the practices and aspirations of IAP and ISC membership – including Young Academies – and is meant to be the groundwork for future actions.
The conversation around research evaluation has gained momentum, emphasizing the need to move beyond traditional metrics that prioritize quantity over quality.
Initiatives like the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) have been pivotal in driving this dialogue. As it has become clear that systemic change is necessary to create an environment where all researchers can thrive, the GYA has endorsed DORA as well as the CLASCO statement on Research Assessment towards a Socially Relevant Science in Latin America and the Caribbean. The GYA is also an active member of CoARA.
Derived from desk-based research, surveys, and interviews, this report – realised in close cooperation with Culture Base – provides insights into the current state of researcher evaluation. The diverse perspectives captured highlight both the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, and recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach is neither feasible nor desirable.
We are especially happy to see that early-career researchers (ECRs) and their organisations are spearheading reform in many instances.
But beyond ECRs, overall we found many efforts that demonstrate a willingness to experiment with new evaluation methods, such as narrative CVs and broader impact assessments, which provide a more comprehensive view of a researcher’s contributions.
The interdependencies within the researcher assessment, publication, and university ranking systems, as well as other metrics, mean that change is not straightforward, and often requires a critical fraction of the researcher community to adopt change together.
We intend to continue working for that aim.