Guest post by Noel Kikuchi, Asa Nakano, and Yuko Shinzawa
Introduction
In Japan, the need to reconsider research assessment practices has become increasingly widely recognized. Conventional approaches relying heavily on quantitative indicators such as publication counts and citation metrics have long been criticized for failing to capture the diversity and long-term value of research. In recent years, however, these concerns have moved beyond conceptual debate and began to take shape through practical initiatives within universities and research institutions, as well as through collaboration among researchers, research managers, and policy stakeholders. This article outlines current developments in research assessment reform in Japan from four perspectives: policy discussions, institutional practices, community-building efforts, and international engagement.
DORA, Science Council of Japan, and National Policy
Discussions on responsible research assessment (RRA) have gradually gained momentum in Japan at both conceptual and policy levels. In its 2021 and 2025 recommendations, the Science Council of Japan highlighted the limitations of assessment systems that rely excessively on quantitative indicators and called for more diverse and pluralistic approaches that recognize the long-term and multifaceted value of research. In 2023, JST and the University of Tokyo became institutional signatories to DORA, reflecting a growing awareness of international principles for research assessment reform within Japan.
The recently released 7th Science, Technology and Innovation Basic Plan also points toward broader approaches to research evaluation, including consideration of economic and societal impact and assessment practices that are not overly dependent on quantitative metrics. At the same time, discussions on concrete institutional implementation are still ongoing. A revision of Japan’s national guidelines for research and development evaluation is expected in 2026, and an important policy question will be whether and how RRA principles can be meaningfully incorporated into these guidelines.
Institutional Practices and COMON
Against this backdrop, practical initiatives have begun to emerge at the institutional level. At Kyoto University, discussions surrounding a new research assessment framework known as COMON have explored approaches that move beyond conventional quantitative metrics and aim to better reflect and the diverse dimensions of research activities. COMON articulates five perspectives that Kyoto University considers central dimensions of research activities: Cumulative foundation, Originality, Maturing excellence, Outreach impact, and Network centrality, from which the name COMON is derived.
While COMON is still under development, a public symposium held in October 2025 brought together researchers, research managers, and other stakeholders from within and beyond the university to discuss key considerations in evolving research assessment practices. Building on feedback gathered through more than ten internal workshops and study sessions, the symposium provided an opportunity to examine and refine draft operational principles for research assessment at Kyoto University.
These efforts remain at an early stage, but they are significant in that research assessment is increasingly being recognized in Japan not merely as an abstract policy issue, but as a practical challenge requiring concrete institutional responses.
Working Group, Community Building, and the Translation Project
Alongside these institutional and policy developments, a broader community has begun to form around the question of how the concepts of RRA can be translated into practice within Japan’s research and assessment systems. Bringing together researchers, research managers, funding agencies, and policy stakeholders, this emerging network seek to share experiences and explore practical challenges across different institutional contexts.
An important catalyst was A Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Performing Organizations (RPO guide), published by DORA in May 2025. In response, a working group was established within the Japan Society for Research Policy and Innovation Management. Its first meeting, held in the summer of 2025, brought together more than 50 participants, including researchers, research managers, and government officials.
Within this working group, a Japanese translation project of the RPO guide was launched to make internationally accumulated knowledge on RRA more accessible and applicable in the Japanese context. By the March 2026 meeting, a Japanese-language version of the guide had been completed. The group also plans to map ongoing RRA-related activities in Japan—including, but not limited to, DORA signatories—and contribute Japanese cases to international spaces for mutual learning.
By connecting stakeholders working at different levels—research institutions, funding programs, and national evaluation frameworks—this emerging community is becoming an important foundation for advancing research assessment reform in Japan.
International Engagement and the Second Working Group Meeting
Developments in Japan are closely connected to broader international discussions on research assessment reform. As reflected in initiatives such as CoARA, international collaboration and knowledge-sharing across disciplines, institutions, and countries are increasingly focused on the challenge of translating shared principles into practice.
The second meeting of the working group focused on these international connections and included a report from participation in the EU Presidency High-Level Conference on Reforming Research Assessment. Drawing on discussions at the conference, several issues particularly relevant to the Japanese context were highlighted.
First, research assessment is often framed primarily as a question of which metrics to use, whereas a more important challenge is how to develop dialogic forms of assessment that support researchers’ career development. Second, while university reforms in Japan have often drawn on European policy models, experience has also shown the importance of engaging carefully with the social, cultural, and institutional contexts underlying such reforms. The same applies to research assessment reform: international RRA initiatives can provide important points of reference, but meaningful implementation requires ongoing efforts to adapt and translate these ideas within the Japanese context. Third, Research on Research was discussed not only as analytical work, but also as a form of action research aimed at adapting institutional reforms to specific local contexts.
Through these exchanges, Japanese initiatives are increasingly being situated within a broader international community working toward more responsible approaches to research assessment.
Looking Ahead
As these examples illustrate, research assessment reform in Japan is advancing simultaneously at multiple levels: through conceptual and policy discussions, institutional initiatives, and the formation of communities that connect these efforts. Significant challenges remain, including the relationship between assessment and resource allocation, the design of sustainable assessment systems, and the reduction of assessment burden.
In this context, community-based initiatives and international knowledge-sharing will play an essential role in sustaining reform efforts. Responsible Research Assessment in Japan is still evolving, but it is increasingly moving beyond isolated institutional initiatives toward broader forms of domestic and international collaboration that may eventually shape wider policy and governance frameworks.