Guest post by Pauline Ronnet, EMBO Policy Assistant, and Sandra Bendiscioli, EMBO Senior Policy Officer and DORA Steering Committee Member
Introduction
As a funding organization supporting talented researchers worldwide, the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) is actively reflecting on how its funding policies can better support researchers. On 20 January 2026, EMBO convened a workshop to revisit a subset of the eligibility and selection criteria of its Postdoctoral Fellowship and Young Investigator Network funding schemes. This blog post highlights EMBO’s role in advancing responsible research assessment in the life sciences, summarizes key topics discussed during the workshop, and outlines both the changes already underway and the questions that remain open. The full workshop report is available here.
A co-founding signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), EMBO has been at the forefront of discussions on the need to abandon the use of journal-based metrics as a surrogate for judging the quality of researchers. In alignment with the DORA principles, EMBO has been developing approaches to better emphasize scientific content over publication metrics and to recognize the value of research outputs beyond traditional publications. The workshop marked an important step in this ongoing effort.
Bringing together approximately forty EMBO Members across different funding schemes, the workshop marked the first cross-programme discussion of its kind within the organization. In line with the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA)’s emphasis on community- and dialogue-driven reform, it offered the opportunity to gather the perspectives of active researchers. Elected in recognition of their scientific achievements, the EMBO members play a central role in the organization’s activities by conducting the peer review of funding applications.
EMBO’s current evaluation criteria are generally perceived as functioning well by both program committees and applicants. The aim of the workshop was therefore to identify targeted refinements that could improve fairness, clarity, and alignment with broader developments in research assessment.
What does “excellence” mean in practice?
Promoting excellence in the life sciences lies at the heart of EMBO’s mission. This, in turn, raises a broad question for its funding schemes: how should “excellence” be defined, and to what extent do current evaluation criteria reflect this vision? The workshop addressed this issue through three guiding questions: whether the outputs, activities, and qualities currently assessed by EMBO could be broadened; if so, how evaluation criteria could be adapted to capture this wider range; and how different criteria could be balanced against one another.
Excellence in science can take several forms, participants noted. For instance, while moving into a new research area – often praised as “stepping out of the comfort zone” – is widely viewed as a signal of innovation and independence, important advances can also emerge within established areas of expertise. In light of this, workshop participants suggested adopting a clearer definition of excellence, one that captures the diverse ways in which it can be demonstrated.
The discussion also underlined the importance of looking beyond past achievements to assess future potential. Requiring applicants to articulate their research ambitions and long-term vision was seen as a way to evaluate their capacity to become independent scientific leaders. From this perspective, fellowships are not only a recognition of past performance but also an investment in future trajectories.
Looking ahead, these reflections opened the door to a second, related question: whether EMBO might further articulate a distinctive profile for the researchers and projects it supports, helping to guide both applicants and reviewers. This is one possible avenue for further reflection at the level of selection committees.
Assessing publications and other research outputs
In the life sciences, peer-reviewed publications and peer-reviewed preprints remain the primary means of communicating research findings and demonstrating researchers’ contributions, and criteria such as first- and last-author position are deeply embedded in evaluation practices.
During workshop discussions, a majority of participants supported the need for criteria that better capture applicants’ individual scientific contributions to publications rather than relying on authorship position. In response, EMBO has already begun to strengthen qualitative assessment. Starting in 2027, applicants to the Fellowship Programme will be asked to provide short narrative descriptions of the scientific value of selected publications and their specific contribution to them. Similar changes are being introduced in the Young Investigator Network schemes, where applicants will be asked to describe both the significance of their work and their role in it.
The discussion also addressed whether research outputs beyond publications, such as open datasets, software, protocols should be included in the assessment. The majority supported their inclusion, recognizing that these also play a crucial role in advancing research, while stressing that their quality should be assessed as well. Further discussions will be needed on how this can be done. In line with EMBO Press’ promotion of open science, EMBO has already taken innovative steps in this direction by formally recognizing peer-reviewed preprints as eligible outputs within its funding schemes, thereby broadening the range of recognized research outputs.
Overall, participants emphasized that the challenge is not only to identify the best indicators of contribution, but also to ensure that they can be applied consistently and at scale. Within this context, first- and last- or senior-author position still function as practical screening tools. Nevertheless, EMBO will continue to explore new approaches, such as contributor role taxonomies.
Recognizing broader contributions to the scientific community
In addition to research outputs, the workshop explored how to recognize contributions that support the wider scientific community, such as public engagement, community building and efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. In line with the holistic approach to research assessment advocated by DORA and CoARA, these contributions are already taken into account in the context of EMBO Membership elections.
Workshop participants supported recognizing broader contributions in the evaluation of Young Investigator Network applications – particularly mentoring and lab leadership – but differed on how best to integrate them into evaluation processes. One approach discussed was to include these elements on an optional basis, allowing applicants to highlight relevant activities without disadvantaging those who have focused primarily on establishing their research programs. There was also support for introducing short narrative elements, enabling applicants to describe not only past contributions but also how they intend to foster a positive research culture in the future. Participants agreed that, if considered, such contributions should be assessed qualitatively, with greater emphasis on their quality and impact rather than on quantity, and they should carry less weight than scientific achievements. The Young Investigator Programme will include a narrative component to the application form for applicants to describe their plans to foster a positive research culture in their groups.
Geographical diversity
Participants considered how differences in research environments across countries and regions can influence researchers’ opportunities and careers, considering the uneven distribution of well-funded research centres and institutes across Europe.
There was consensus that EMBO’s ongoing efforts to improve success rates for underrepresented countries and promote greater geographical diversity are valuable and should be continued. These include EMBO’s Increasing Participation Initiative and the Installation Grants, which have been shown to be effective in attracting talented researchers to underrepresented countries. Other EMBO initiatives include extensive outreach, such as targeted outreach visits to underrepresented countries by EMBO Members and successful grantees, and webinars to support applicants from those countries to prepare competitive applications.
Building on existing efforts, EMBO will continue targeted initiatives that both recognize exceptional researchers wherever they are and contribute to strengthening scientific capacity.
To further promote geographical equity, suggested actions included normalizing outputs to geographical context by analyzing outcomes in relation to GDP, R&D investment, and application rates; encouraging applicants to describe their research environments and available resources; and strengthening committee awareness of cultural and contextual differences.
Academic age and scientific independence
A further discussion point focused on how academic age and scientific independence are defined and assessed across EMBO’s funding schemes. As research careers become increasingly diverse, participants reflected on whether eligibility criteria should better account for longer postdoctoral phases and changing career trajectories in the life sciences. It was noted that the approaches used in EMBO’s main schemes, which assess applicants based on the number of years since PhD completion or since the start of scientific independence, already allow for contextual and flexible assessment, even if this sometimes requires case-by-case evaluation. Overall, participants supported maintaining the current approaches for now, recognizing their capacity to accommodate the complexity of modern research careers, while acknowledging the need for continued reflection as career patterns evolve.
Conclusion
Reforming research assessment is not simply a matter of introducing new criteria, but of finding approaches that are both meaningful and workable in practice. As the workshop discussions highlighted, there is broad support for more qualitative and nuanced ways of recognizing scientific contributions, particularly in collaborative research environments. At the same time, implementing such approaches in a competitive funding context remains challenging. Evaluation processes must remain transparent, consistent, and scalable, enabling reviewers to assess large numbers of applications fairly while making robust funding decisions.
The discussions also underscored that research assessment cannot be separated from the broader question of what funding schemes are designed to support. Clearer articulation of program objectives, and of what “excellence” means in each context, are essential to guide both applicants and reviewers, and to ensure alignment between assessment criteria and intended outcomes.
While EMBO has already taken concrete steps to align its practices with principles advanced by DORA and CoARA, the workshop made clear that this is an ongoing process rather than a one-time reform. Open questions remain, including how best to integrate broader contributions and non-traditional research outputs into evaluation, and how to balance flexibility with consistency across different funding schemes.
Ultimately, improving research assessment requires continuous reflection, experimentation, and dialogue with the research community. EMBO’s ongoing efforts illustrate both the opportunities and the complexities involved in moving toward more responsible, inclusive, and future-oriented approaches to evaluating research and researchers.