Each quarter, DORA holds a Community of Practice (CoP) meeting for National and International Initiatives working to address responsible research assessment reform. This CoP is a space for initiatives to learn from each other, make connections with like-minded organizations, and collaborate on projects or topics of common interest. Meeting agendas are shaped by participants. If you lead an initiative, coalition, or organization working to improve research assessment and are interested in joining the group, please find more information here.
Our November 11th meeting adopted a unique format: we heard from four distinct research groups that are actively studying narrative CVs (NCV) implementation from various angles, providing crucial insights into the experience of applicants, the behavior of reviewers, and the systemic challenges inherent in cultural change.
Each presentation began with an overview of the project, team members or collaborators and the timeline or stage of development. It then described the approach and activities, outlining the methodology or framework used. Next, they shared insights and findings, highlighting early results, learnings, challenges encountered, and successes or promising practices. Finally, it concluded with future directions, detailing next steps, plans, and opportunities for collaboration. We are delighted to share below a summary of the conversation, the recording of the presentations and the slides shared in 4 great presentations.
Hannah Frith presented findings from the “Breaking Barriers” research, a project that ran from August 2024 to August 2025. The study focused on how NCVs impact researchers from underrepresented groups. The approach included interviews with 20 underrepresented researchers, narrative CV writing workshops, linguistic analysis of 27 UKRI-templated CVs, and evaluation of those CVs by external reviewers. The project was funded by EDICa.
Main insights include:
- Applicant experience & barriers: Researchers broadly recognized the value of NCVs but reported significant barriers to adoption, including the burden of adopting a new style of language and feelings of anxiety. This burden was particularly noted by researchers for whom English was not their first language or those with disabilities/neurodiversity.
- Linguistic bias: Linguistic analysis, using tools like BERT agent and LIWC22, found that some minority groups were less likely to use agentic language and language associated with certainty. Reviewers subsequently rated applications featuring less agentic/certainty language less positively across metrics like expertise, success, and leadership.
- Future needs: The researchers emphasized the need for a single, evolving resource hub that provides consistent information, increased transparency regarding how reviewer evaluations are conducted, and personalized mentorship opportunities, which applicants highly valued.
HannahFrith_Surrey slides.
Luisa Ciampi detailed an ongoing mixed-method randomized control trial at the University of Cambridge, focused on understanding how NCVs affect postdoctoral recruitment, primarily in STEM fields. The study compares applicant rankings based on standard CVs versus narrative CVs.
Main insights include:
- Impact on reviewing: Preliminary qualitative findings suggest panel members feel NCVs have a limited effect on shortlisting, with technical skills remaining the most important factor at this stage. NCVs generally take more time to assess and write, though this perception is often linked to the novelty of the format.
- Disparity trends: Quantitative data suggests that compared to standard CV, moving to Narrative CV benefited men, applicants from the Global South, and applicants self-identifying as white.
- Future focus: The team is aiming to enroll 25 recruitments, developing a narrative CV resource (including deconstructed examples), and convening international stakeholders to potentially develop and test alternative NCV templates for postdoctoral recruitment.
LuisaCiampi_Cambridge slides.
Judit Varga and Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner presented findings from the RoRI NARRATIVES Project, which analyzed the evaluative use of NCVs across three European funders—NWO (Rubicon grant, early career), SNSF (Ambizione grant, early career), and Volkswagen Foundation (Momentum grant, professors)—and across two broad disciplinary categories (Social Sciences/Humanities and Natural Sciences).
Main insights include:
- Resistance as impact: The study found that NCVs prompt reviewers to articulate new scientific virtues and contributions, such as non-academic experiences or interdisciplinarity. Critically, moments of resistance – where reviewers revert to traditional criteria like publication prestige – still occur, but this resistance itself signals the impact of NCVs by demonstrating that alternative forms of evaluation are being considered.
- The crucial rationale: The use of NCVs depends significantly on the reviewers’ understanding of the initiative’s rationale. A purely procedural understanding (e.g., using NCVs because DORA mandates action against journal impact factors) is less supportive of reform than a value-based reflection (e.g., NCVs can help “hidden champions” tell their stories better).
- Future support: Upcoming work includes a CWTS service project designed to help organizations (universities and funders) prepare for NCV introduction by instructing program officers and research managers on how to deal with challenges and resistance, focusing practice on the side of the organizations rather than solely on applicants.
JuditWolfgang_RoRI slides.
I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Karen Stroobants summarized findings from this comprehensive review project, a collaboration reviewing existing evaluations and studies on NCV implementation across stakeholder groups. The project was funded by the UK Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology (DSIT) and the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Metascience fund.
- Broad acceptance, limited valuation: The review confirms broad acceptance of NCVs, with applicants generally more positive than reviewers, appreciating the opportunity for broader recognition. The introduction of an NCV format fulfills the objective of recognizing broader contributions, but as a standalone intervention, does not guarantee that those contributions are actually valued.
- Reviewer support gap: A primary finding is the lack of sufficient support and training for reviewers, which presents a major barrier to achieving intended outcomes. Reviewers particularly struggled when publication lists were discouraged.
- Systemic alignment: Whether the potential of NCVs is realized depends both on reviewer support/training and whether other system-wide measures are aligned in the same people-oriented direction. The team is preparing a review paper and a series of briefings targeted at organizations implementing NCVs.
KarenStroobants_Cambridge slides.
The subsequent discussion among the CoP members delved into critical challenges raised by the studies:
- The documentation and trust challenge: Participants questioned how to provide verifiable evidence for “soft skills” or competences (like teamwork) listed in NCVs. It was noted that this challenge exists in traditional CVs too (e.g., assessing the quality of supervised students based on number alone). The consensus emphasized that NCVs require organizations to broaden the forms of evidencing they trust. Trust is vital, and the level of required evidence should be proportional to the decision being made. New forms of evidencing could include using the reflexive and coherent manner in which an applicant tells their story as evidence of scientific independence.
- The role of rationale in change management: It was noted that institutional guidance often cuts the rationale or “why” in favor of brevity of guidance documents. Wolfgang emphasized that for reform initiatives to succeed, they must explicitly “front-load the big normative discussion” about why the change is being made. Relying solely on procedural changes or ‘nudging’ without clear value reflection is less effective. It was suggested that conversations and reflections on values need to be fostered alongside procedures.
- Funder vs. Institution implementation: Karen emphasized that implementing NCVs at Research Performing Organizations (RPOs) presents a greater challenge than at Research Funding Organizations (RFOs). RPOs often have decentralized recruitment where groups prioritize technical requirements and may not be guided by a central rationale, making it harder to shift assessment practices.
The meeting concluded with updates from group members and opportunities for ongoing collaboration:
- Collaboration request: Luisa extended an open call for review input on the adaptable NCV template being developed by the Cambridge team for postdoctoral recruitment. Interested parties can contact her at lc886@cam.ac.uk.
- CoARA: Karen Stroobants (CoARA Vice-Chair) announced that CoARA is celebrating its third birthday soon and has launched a Spotlight Series to increase the dissemination and visibility of outputs generated by its Working Groups.
- Scholarly Communication & RRA: Bianca Kramer (Barcelona Declaration Executive Director) highlighted an upcoming workshop on November 15, 2025, in Pisa, convened by DORA, ASAPbio, CWTS, and the International Science Council, focusing on the critical link between publication reform and research assessment reform.
- DORA Initiatives: DORA plans to host an event on innovations in research assessment in the US on November 20th, focusing on anonymization in selection processes and training for peer reviewers. Looking ahead, DORA will launch an “RRA 101” introductory course in early 2026, aimed at providing fundamental knowledge about responsible research assessment to a broad audience, including those focused on open science or societal impact who may not yet see RRA as relevant to their work.
- INORMS REG: Dr. Erica Conte will chair the one-year CoARA Working Group (WG) “Thinking critically about University Rankings Network” (TURN). The SCOPE4Impact Focus Group recently published a critical blog post on the London School of Economics’ Impact Blog (How responsible is Clarivate’s ‘Responsible Impact Assessment Framework?’). They are organizing a summit on February 11, 2026 to discuss the implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research evaluation within the context of Responsible Research Assessment (RRA).