Make Data Count is a global, community-led initiative focused on the development of open, responsibly…
Initiatives
Responsible Science Assessment: downplaying indexes, boosting quality
In this piece, Alicia Kowaltowski, Ariel Silber, and Marcus Oliveira outline challenges faced by the…
UK Forum for Responsible Research Metrics
The Metric Tide was published in July 2015, and provides an extensive review of the literature on peer review, the use of metrics and altmetrics, and a statistical analysis of the predictive power of various numerical indicators (including the JIF).
The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics
The Leiden Manifesto provides ten principles for the appropriate use of metrics in research evaluation.
The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity
Institutions and funders can use the Hong Kong Principles to reward and recognize scholars for behavior that contributes to trustworthy research.
Room for Everyone’s Talent
Dutch public knowledge institutions and research funders published a position paper ‘Room for Everyone’s Talent‘ rethinking their academic reward and recognition systems.
INORMS – Research Evaluation Working Group
The International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) created a working group in 2018 to promote meaningful, responsible, and effective research evaluation practices.
Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication
The Helsinki Initiative has three tenets to recognize multilingualism in scholarly work. This includes the promotion of language diversity in research assessment, evaluation, and funding systems.
Good Practice in Researcher Evaluation: Recommendation for the Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher in Finland
A working group set up by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies produced guidelines to improve how researchers are assessed in Finland. The report provides a set of general principles (transparency, integrity, fairness, competence, and diversity) that apply throughout 13 recommended good practices to improve four aspects of researcher evaluation.