Resource Library

Applicants understand how funding decisions are made, because the Agency openly shares a general summary of its decision-making process on their website written in English and French.

The NHMRC guide for peer review instructs assessors not to rely on the Journal Impact Factor when making judgments.

The FWF recognizes a diverse range of research outcomes and requires grant applicants to provide information on various research achievements.

CRUK recognizes value from all outputs of research, including publications. CRUK has modified its grant application process to ask candidates to describe the significance and impact of 3-5 key research achievements, which can include preprints, training delivered, contribution to consortia, patents, and sharing of key datasets, software, novel assays and reagents, and research publications.

CIRAD developed the ImpresS method to assess the environmental and societal impact its research.

The application process for EMBO Long-Term Fellowships emphasizes the most important outcomes and impact of the applicant’s work rather than where it is published and specifically states that journal impact factors should not be provided.

The fundamental activity of the ERC is to provide attractive, long-term funding to support Principal Investigators and their research teams to pursue ground-breaking, high-gain/high-risk research. The ERC puts particular emphasis on the frontiers of science and scholarship. In particular, it encourages proposals of a multi- or interdisciplinary nature which cross the boundaries between different fields…

Evaluation of Research Careers fully Acknowledging Open Science Practices, a report released by the European Commission in 2017, recognizes the emerging Open Science movement creates an opportunity to develop an evaluation system for hiring and promotion that is focused on the equal treatment of applicants.

The Health Research Board (HRB) has taken several actions since 2016 to implement DORA’s principles in its grant review process.

The IDRC in Canada developed a tool called Research Quality Plus (RQ+) to assess applied and translational research.

The ORFG released guidance for funders called, Incentivizing the sharing of research outputs through research assessment: a funder implementation blueprint.

The Swiss National Science Foundation is testing a structured narrative CV format called ‘SciCV’ to increase consistency in decision-making for its grant applications.

The NWO is piloting a narrative CV format for assessment of early career researchers who apply to the Veni funding scheme.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has revised the format of the CV or “biosketch” in grant applications.

The U.S. National Science Foundation has modified its instructions to grant applicants to recognize that the outputs of scientific research include more than just publications, an idea endorsed by DORA.

As part of its open access 2020 policy, Wellcome-funded organizations are asked to publicly commit to the principle that when assessing research outputs – for example in hiring, promotion and tenure committees – they will consider the intrinsic merit of the work, not the title of the journal, its impact factor or the publisher.