What is the new policy?

Beginning on January 1, 2025, organizations and institutions that sign DORA will need to submit a public statement at the time of signing to be approved. Previously, organizations were asked to post a public statement when they signed DORA, but signatures would be approved without them, on the expectation that public statements would be forthcoming.

Why is the policy changing?

In November 2022, DORA announced its original outreach policy. This policy had a built-in “sunset clause” that required DORA leadership to review the policy in December, 2023 based on the learnings from the previous year. A task force from the DORA Steering Committee was struck to review the policy. As part of that review, DORA staff reviewed the websites of organization signatories and found that very few posted the requested public statement. This suggested that the first version of this policy was not having the desired effects, such as insuring that organizations’ communities are informed about implementation of DORA principles.

The task force also noted that organizations similar to DORA had more stringent requirements for members, and organizations were still willing to join.

DORA has now existed for ten years. While agreements to principles are still valuable and necessary parts of consciousness raising and awareness, it is time for organizations to move towards implementing DORA principles. We believe public statements are a useful starting point for organizations to articulate where they are in their reform practices and how they aspire to improve them.

What about organizations that have already signed DORA?

We will continue to encourage these organizations to post a statement. We will be reaching out to as many existing signatories as possible to suggest to them that they devise and post a public statement by January 1, 2026 and submit it to DORA staff. DORA staff will update the database as new public statements are received.

How do I know who has posted a statement?

The DORA signatory page will be updated to show the link to the public statement alongside the name of the organization.

What should be in a public statement?

Below are five steps to guide the writing of a statement:

1. Identify your institution and describe the institution’s goals or priorities regarding research assessment. For example, “Our institution is a research extensive university that seeks to engage our undergraduates in research, and to ensure faculty who do so are rewarded for that work,” or “Our institution values research that impacts our regional community and is accessible in their preferred language, and we seek to ensure research outputs are not biased against non-English publications.”
2. Describe DORA and link to the DORA website. For example “The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a global initiative dedicated to improving research assessment practices”. You may also include a DORA signatory badge.
3. Indicate when the institution signed DORA and how DORA’s principles align with institutional goals. For example, “The institution signed DORA in July, 2024. Reducing our reliance on journal Impact Factors will allow our researchers a wider array of publishing options in our regional language.”
4. Describe any current plans regarding research assessment and DORA implementation, with links or documents if possible (e.g., consultations, policies, strategic plans, training). For example, “The Department will be creating a task force to review its assessment practices, and is tasked with delivering a strategic plan by the end of the calendar year.”
5. Provide contact information to relevant individual(s) or office(s) responsible for research assessment and DORA implementation. For example, “The implementation of DORA in the college is being administered by the Dean’s office. Questions can be directed to the Associate Dean at <email address>.”

Some examples of previous statements are below. Because they were published before this guidance, not all examples contain all of the elements listed above, but they fulfilled the original mandate to provide a public recognition of the support for DORA on their own website.

Examples of statements by universities:

• AECC Community College
• Coventry University
• Queensland University of Technology
• University of Calgary
• University of Tokyo

Examples of statements by journals or publishers:

• Revista Cientifica da UMC
• Research Lake International
• Publications scientifiques sur Museum national d’Histoire naturelle

Examples of statement by a funding agency and organizations:

• Japan Science and Technology Agency
• Science Integrity Alliance

The post DORA releases new engagement & outreach policy for organizational signatories appeared first on DORA.

Publishing requires constant innovation and renewal in order for it to remain relevant. eLife has disrupted the traditional model of scholarly publishing: since its inception, innovation and academic-led publishing have been at the core of eLife‘s policies and processes. Presently, their peer review model requires submissions to be preprinted prior to peer review, followed by the publication of the  papers’ reviews alongside the article together with an eLife Assessment as “a Reviewed Preprint”. In this publishing model, there is no binary determination of acceptance or rejection after peer review. This approach addresses the fact that articles submitted, reviewed, and rejected at one journal tend to ultimately get published elsewhere (and consequently indexed), often unchanged.  eLife’s model has provided valuable innovation in peer review and hands control back to the authors of the research.

The recent announcement by Clarivate that they have suspended indexing of eLife from the Web of Science Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), and by association from being eligible for a Journal Impact Factor, highlights the overt challenges to disrupt and innovate in the scholarly publishing system.  Clarivate have indicated this is because they want to only index a curated feed of papers from eLife rather than all the papers that undergo peer review, regardless of outcome. Since eLife has been put on hold, Chinese authors have either stopped submitting and others have withdrawn, indicating the strong dependence of the Journal Impact Factor on author perceptions in China. In some jurisdictions, including China, journal articles must be indexed in Web of Science to “count”.  This move may also limit the discoverability of eLife’s articles.

This development  reinforces how a commercial entity such as Clarivate, can, through its ownership of scholarly databases and indices, hold the academic community to ransom. Clarivate’s announcement is disappointing as it both punishes innovation in peer review and disregards the important role of authors in deciding how and where their research should be published.

As funders and institutions increasingly move away from using single metrics to assess research(ers), the role of Journal Impact Factors is becoming increasingly irrelevant. We know, for example, that funder journals such as Open Research Europe, Wellcome Open Research and Gates Open Research, and indeed all the F1000 titles, have never had a Journal Impact Factor and do not need it to show the impact that they have within their communities.

eLife has long been a supporter of DORA and was an early signatory. Our view is that the innovative initiatives by eLife and others are crucial to ensuring that scholarly communication continues to evolve in a variety of ways to meet the changing needs of the research ecosystem in the 21st century. We are concerned by the action that Clarivate is taking, but not because of the possibility that eLife will not be eligible for a Journal Impact Factor but because Clarivate can use its market dominance to shut down innovation.

We therefore support eLife and encourage it to continue its innovation and encourage other journals to consider doing the same.

The post Clarivate’s actions regarding eLife: DORA’s response appeared first on DORA.

Each of those thousands of signatures represents an individual or organization that supports the principles of the original San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, drafted in 2013. Most signatures are from individuals, with QQ percent from various organizations, including universities, departments and libraries within universities, academic publishers, funding agencies, and more.

Signing the Declaration was the first way that DORA engaged with the research community. 

“DORA’s signers provided evidence the academic community wanted researcher assessment to change,” said Anna Hatch, DORA’s original Program Director. “The number of signers was one motivator to expand our vision for the declaration. As a result, DORA transformed into an active initiative that supports the development of responsible researcher assessment by creating opportunities for its community to learn from each other and work together.”

While DORA has since become a much larger initiative that provides tools and resources to support improved methods of research assessment, the list of signatories remains an important part of the organization.

Ginny Barbour and Kelly Kobey, DORA’s current Co-chairs said, “The number and diversity of signers from across the world – and that they continue to increase – demonstrates how much reform of research assessment resonates globally. The initial Declaration was a concrete call for change that is now being implemented through DORA’s many resources and activities. The 25,000 landmark of signers demonstrates the continuing important role that DORA has as a rallying point for both organizations and individuals.”

The declaration can be signed by filling out an online form for support on the DORA website.

The post DORA reaches 25,000 signatures appeared first on DORA.

Announcements

Reformscape in Full Swing

Since its release in January, Reformscape has been serving the research community in providing 230 documents encouraging openness & transparency. New documents and information continue to be added and are always publicly available. Upgrades have also been made to make the platform more user-friendly. You can now search for responsible research assessment resources based on type, making it easy to find:

• Action plans
• Policies to reform hiring, promotion or tenure
• Outcomes of new policies
  

New guidance released

DORA’s opposition to the overuse of the Journal Impact Factor is well known, but the original declaration did not specifically address other forms of indicators that are sometimes used as proxy measures of quality in research assessment. In a new guidance document, we examine the potential problems of not only the Journal Impact Factor, but the h-index, altmetrics, and various other citation measures. None of these indicators are without problems, but the guidance provides five principles to help reduce some of the concerns.

This guidance is available on the DORA website and Zenodo. For questions about this guidance, email info@sfdora.org.

New Narrative CV Report

DORA is pleased to announce a new report on the implementation and monitoring of narrative CVs for grant funding. This report was created in collaboration with FORGEN CoP, Science Foundation Ireland, the Swiss National Science Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, and the University of Bristol, Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research. The report summarizes takeaways and recommended actions from a joint workshop held in February 2022 on identifying shared objectives for and monitoring the effectiveness of narrative CVs for grant evaluation. More than 180 people from over 30 countries and 50 funding organizations participated.

Read the report

New report on improving pre-award processes

The processes that take place before research is submitted for funding (pre-award processes) serve as important scaffolding to support equitable and transparent research assessment. This report summarizes the key recommendations from DORA’s Funder Discussion Group symposia and workshops to improve pre-award processes, which were held in collaboration with the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research (EBI) at the University of Bristol and the MoreBrains Cooperative.

Read the report

Building on this work, we are pleased to also announce that DORA, EBI, and MoreBrains are continuing their collaboration and are developing a new project to look at how three of the recommendations could be implemented. In May 2024, we will host two workshops that will bring DORA’s Funder Discussion Groups together with research administrators and managers to generate tools and guidance that address practical implementation of these recommendations.

DORA seeks new steering committee member from Asia

DORA is looking for Steering Committee members based in Asia. To be considered for this position, please complete this self-nomination form by May 31, 2024.

Approaching 25,000 signatories

There are nearly 25,000 individuals and organizations that have recognized a need to promote responsible research assessment. Every day the number of signatories for DORA increases and we anticipate reaching 25,000 signatories by summer. Signing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment signifies a dedication to the principle that scientists should be evaluated on their individual achievements and quality of their work rather than on journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factor. We are excited to reach the 25,000 mark and share this milestone with the research community!

The post DORA Newsletter May 2024 appeared first on DORA.

To support further understanding of the complexities and potential problems with indicators DORA is today releasing a new guidance document which applies the principles underlying its original declaration to other quantitative indicators that are sometimes used in research evaluation. These indicators include the h-index, citation counts, and altmetrics. 

Because no indicator can capture the complexities of research quality in one number, this document describes five principles that can help prevent indicators from being misused in assessment.

1. Be clear.
2. Be transparent.
3. Be specific.
4. Be contextual.
5. Be fair.

The new guidance avoids simple recommendations like, “Do / do not use this indicator.” Instead, it describes limitations of the indicators to help provide nuance in the application of quantitative indicators.

The guidance was developed by a DORA working group, led by Professor Stephen Curry, previously Chair of DORA. We are very grateful for feedback provided by an international group of bibliometricians and practitioners in research assessment during the preparation of this guidance. We would welcome any further comments that might help to refine the guidance further. 

The guidance is intentionally short and accessible, and does not assume extensive knowledge of bibliometrics.

This guidance is available on the DORA website, Zenodo, and Google Docs. A summary is available as a PowerPoint slide deck.

For questions about this guidance, email info@sfdora.org.

The post DORA releases new guidance on research indicators appeared first on DORA.

DORA is a global initiative dedicated to the improvement of research assessment. Almost 25,000 individuals and organizations worldwide have signed DORA in the last decade, including research institutions, funders, and government agencies.

The Steering Committee supports and shapes DORA’s mission and vision, as outlined in DORA’s governance document. 

Steering Committee members are expected to:

• Participate regularly in hour long meetings every three months.
• Participate on task forces occasionally.
• Promote DORA and give presentations about DORA in your region when opportunities arise.

To be considered for this position, please complete this form by May 31, 2024: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14sLhawOKC32d-Rb1wYdXa8TXusWYIjttgNfi5MUa9hs/viewform

Applicants will be reviewed by DORA and voted on by the DORA Steering Committee.

For more information, email info@sfdora.org.

The post DORA Steering Committee opportunity: Asia appeared first on DORA.

The aim of the workshop was to develop a shared definition for narrative CV and create a list of common objectives for its use in grant evaluation. The workshop took place on two occasions to accommodate global participation, and more than 180 individuals from over 50 funding organizations in more than 30 countries registered for the events. To support alignment of values and collective action towards the iterative adoption of narrative CVs at funding organizations, we worked with attendees to discuss a shared definition for the narrative CV, generate a list of common objectives for its use in grant evaluation, and identify ideas to support the optimization of narrative CVs as a robust tool for research assessment.

The group defined narrative CV’s as “a type of CV format that provides structured written descriptions of academics’ or researchers’ contributions and achievements that reflect a broad range of relevant skills and experiences” and identified three primary shared objectives for use:

1) Increase the recognition of a wider range of research contributions
2) Increase fairness in grant funding decisions
3) Increase flexibility for researchers to demonstrate contributions.

Our short report on the workshop summarizes the takeaways, provides a shared definition and objectives, and includes a one-page tip sheet “Ideas for Optimization: Five things to consider to optimize, evaluate & iterate on the use of narrative CVs” (see report page 6 or resource library entry Ideas for Optimization: Five things to consider to optimize, evaluate and iterate on the use of narrative CVs).

Click here to read the full report

The post Using Narrative CVs: A shared definition and recommendations for monitoring effectiveness appeared first on DORA.

The following list of new developments were created by DORA staff. This list is not exhaustive and we might have missed something in the process of our search for new developments. Please let us know what other advances we should consider adding to the “From elsewhere” section or to the DORA resource library (email info@sfdora.org).

In 2023, there were several new developments in DORA’s leadership team. In July, DORA welcomed new Program Director Zen Faulkes and Acting Director Haley Hazlett returned to her role as Program Manager. Zen shared more about his background and passion for responsible research assessment in Words from DORA’s New Program Director. In November, DORA bid a fond farewell to Stephen Curry, whose six-year term as Chair came to an end. DORA also welcomed a new leadership team in November: Ginny Barbour of Queensland University of Technology and Kelly Cobey of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute became joint Chairs of DORA, and Rebecca Lawrence of F1000 became the new Vice-Chair of DORA.

New Developments

From DORA

• In February, DORA’s Community Engagement Grant Awardees shared the results of their work in a series of blog posts. DORA piloted the program in 2022 to directly support a broad range of ideas to promote assessment reform at academic institutions. Teams from around the world were awarded funds to support projects to promote assessment reform at academic institutions. Their work ranged from conducting research on assessment practices, developing guidance and training, holding workshops and events, and raising awareness.
• In March, DORA announced a new 3-year strategic plan. The plan was finalized after extensive consultation with the broader scholarly community and the DORA Steering Committee. The plan includes four new strategic objectives:
  • Increase awareness of the negative impacts of research assessment practices that are too dependent on inappropriate metrics, and of the positive impacts of alternative practices
  • Accelerate the development of clear and concrete measures to reform research assessment
  • Support advocates of research assessment reform worldwide
  • Secure the funding needed to deliver DORA’s mission as efficiently and as rapidly as possible
• In May, DORA celebrated its 10th Anniversary by featuring a decentralized program of 21 local events organized by advocates of reform from 15 countries. Community members the world over organized their own events to examine key topics in research assessment most meaningful to them, from locally relevant issues to publishing models to the future of research assessment and more. In addition to the locally organized program of events, DORA hosted two plenary sessions on May 15 to support global participation in the celebration. The plenaries saw over 300 attendees from over 50 countries and focused both on the history of DORA and, critically, the future of research assessment. In addition to opening remarks from DORA Chair Stephen Curry and DORA Vice-Chair Ginny Barbour, the plenaries featured keynote addresses from Sarah de Rijcke (CWTS Leiden) and Mai Har Sham (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) and panel sessions from experts around the globe. Additionally, the work of DORA’s Community Engagement Grant Awardees was shared during the plenary. Check out the blogs for the Asia-Pacific plenary and the Africa, Americas, Europe plenary for reading lists inspired by the presentations, quotes, and key takeaways from the meetings.
• Tools to Advance Research Assessment (TARA) is a project to facilitate the development of new policies and practices for academic career assessment supported by Arcadia, a charitable foundation that works to protect nature, preserve cultural heritage and promote open access to knowledge.. In May 2023, TARA team members Alex Rushforth (CWTS Leiden) and Sarah de Rijcke shared the results of their qualitative study of faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure practices in the United States. This work was also a feature of Sarah de Rijcke’s keynote address for the DORA 10th Anniversary Africa, Americas, Europe plenary session. Project TARA also aims to create a series of tools to support community advocacy for responsible research assessment policies and practices. In March, DORA released a summary of a public event introducing the first two tools, Debiasing Committee Composition and Deliberative Processes and Building Blocks for Impact. These tools were created by TARA team member Ruth Schmidt (Institute of Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology).
• “Reimagining Academic Career Assessment: Stories of innovation and change” is a collection of case studies from universities and national consortia examining their work to develop new policies and practices. The case study repository was published at the end of 2020 by DORA, the European University Association, and SPARC Europe. DORA continues to grow the repository and in August the University of Zurich was included. The case study for University of Zurich focuses on its HI-FRAME project, which worked to align the hiring practices of the University with open science practices.
• In September and October, DORA organized a series of symposia and workshops for its Research Funder Discussion Groups in partnership with the MoreBrains Cooperative and the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute of Bristol University that focused on identifying concrete steps to reduce the barriers for funding applications and increase transparency in funding calls.
• The University of Tokyo and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) became DORA signatories, a further step in the Asia-Pacific region towards the implementation of responsible assessment reform.

From elsewhere

• Many of the local event organizers who participated in DORA’s 10th Anniversary Celebration drafted summaries of the key takeaways from their events. These summary blogs, some of which are available in both English and Spanish, cover topics that were important and relevant to the organizers, including university rankings, the intersection of open research and research assessment and more.
• The Agreement on Research Assessment reform and the resulting Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) exceeded 500 member organizations, assembled its members for a General Assembly, and released its first calls for Working Groups and National Chapters to develop outputs that will support CoARA members as they work to implement the commitments agreed upon when joining the Coalition.
• The Global Young Academy (GYA), the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) and the International Science Council (ISC) organized The Future of Research Evaluation: A Synthesis of Current Debates and Developments. This report is a global perspective that captures a “broad cross-section of the research ecosystem whose diverse mandates can facilitate genuine systemic change”. The report was authored by experts from CWTS Leiden, FOLEC, NSFC, University of Malaya, Higher Education Commission (Mauritius), University of Pretoria,  FAO OED, University of Rome, and the University of Melbourne.
• As funding organizations continue to adopt the use of more narrative-style CVs, there is a burgeoning need for research into how new CV formats influence review practices and funding outcomes. The Research on Research Institute launched its Narratives Project to “provide research funders and policymakers with evidence and analytical insights to facilitate the design and use of narrative CV formats”. UK Research and Innovation worked with funders and research institutions to develop guidance and infrastructure to support the use of narrative CVs.
• UNESCO released a report Open science outlook 1: status and trends around the world. The report identifies a primary hurdle to the progress of open science is the alignment of assessment practices used to evaluate scholars and institutions for funding and career decisions. To support the alignment of values in research assessment, UNESCO used case studies of initiatives, like DORA, FOLEC, CoARA and the GYA, that are working internationally to establish more responsible research assessment practices.
• University rankings were a major point of focus for many in the responsible research assessment space, catalyzed by the creation of the INORMS More Than Our Rank (MTOR) initiative. Aggregate and overly simplified measures of quality (which often are calculated opaquely and using other proxy measures like h-index) can reduce the broad range of an institution’s research activities down to a single number. MTOR encourages academic institutions to recognize the limitations of university rankings and to post statements of their “activities, achievements or ambitions that are not adequately captured by national or international university rankings.”
• The Latin American Forum for Research Assessment (FOLEC-CLACSO) released a new report with Fundación Carolina analyzing different recommendations and regulations on Open Science in Ibero-America. The study analyzes how to strengthen open infrastructures in interaction with their communities and makes recommendations to improve scientific information in open repositories. Additionally, FOLEC organized the international conference The evaluation of research in Social Sciences and Humanities under debate: dimensions, methodologies, practices and challenges. In addition to its role co-organizing the Global Summit on Diamond Open Access with Redalyc, UAEMéx, AmeliCA, UNESCO, UÓR, ANR, cOAlition S, OPERAS and Science Europe, FOLEC collaborated on Manifesto on Science as Global Public Good: Noncommercial Open Access. FOLEC collaborated with the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) of Argentina and the National Agency of Research and Development (ANID) of Chile to organize Transformations in academic communication and the impact on evaluation systems at the 2023 Americas Regional Meeting of the Global Research Council (GRC). 
• The Dutch Recognition and Rewards Programme held its third Recognition and Rewards Festival and released its first e-magazine, which features a range of concrete examples of responsible assessment practices. The Programme released a summary of a discussion on university rankings and how they fit with the mission of recognition and rewards. The Programme additionally released a roadmap of concrete steps that it will take to catalyze responsible assessment practices in the Netherlands. Additionally, several universities in the Netherlands implemented new career profiles to better recognize and reward the range of faculty expertise and career paths, including: Maastricht University’s Academic Profile for Assistant, Associate and Full Professors; the University Medical Center Utrecht’s career profiles for researchers and career framework; and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam’s career paths (currently unavailable).
• The United States White House released a Report to Congress on Financing Mechanisms For Open Access Publishing of Federally Funded Research. Section 6.3 of the report includes findings from a series of listening sessions with over 1,000 early career researchers about open access publishing. Participants felt that the pervasive culture of “publish or perish” in high-impact journals was a barrier to adopting open access practices, and that moving away from the focus on journal impact factor could help with acceptance. DORA was cited in this report as an initiative working to move the academic community away from an outsized focus on inappropriate quality metrics.
• SPACE is a tool developed to facilitate academic assessment reform at universities by examining what infrastructure is needed to support the development of new policies and practices. In 2022, DORA worked with Ruth Schmidt collaborated with CINDA to organize a workshop on the practical use of SPACE. Building in part off of this workshop, CINDA began a project among its member universities to pilot the implementation of SPACE for responsible research assessment reform, sharing a work in progress report in December 2023.

What is in store for 2024?

DORA has quite a bit planned for 2024 and the below list is not exhaustive, but there are several exciting projects that will be released in 2024 that we are particularly keen to share:

• Project TARA
  • Reformscape will be released in January 2024. Reformscape is an interactive database that contains examples of responsible research assessment practices and processes from academic institutions around the world. This will be a community fed database for researchers, academic policymakers and administrators who are seeking examples and resources to support their efforts to reform assessment practices at their institutions. 
  • Made available via preprint in 2023, Practicing Responsible Research Assessment: Qualitative study of Faculty Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure Assessments in the United States will be published in 2024.
  • After releasing Debiasing Committee Composition and Deliberative Processes  and Building Blocks for Impact in late 2022, a new set of tools is currently under development and slated for release in 2024.
• DORA  is developing a new resource that will clarify the organization’s position on a range of metrics and success indicators, and how signatories can make informed decisions on whether and how to evaluate different metrics.

Haley Hazlett is DORA’s Program Manager

The post 2023 in Review: List of new developments in research assessment appeared first on DORA.

Announcements

Farewells, Welcomes, and Exciting News

News

QUT becomes signatory of DORA
As of September 15th, 2023, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is officially a signatory of DORA, committing to the support of high quality research and fair research assessment. QUT has also announced their plan to institute a new approach to assessing research and researchers using DORA, as well as other institutions, as guides, establishing a list of principles they will adhere to in order to accomplish this.

Get excited about Reformscape
Exciting things are coming your way in January 2024, in the form of Reformscape! This easily accessible tool is structured to help you see how institutions around the world are implementing reform in research assessment and hiring processes. Reformscape is a roadmap to policy change that is meant to be both explored and contributed to, with information on many of the questions that may arise when trying to implement new policy. Keep an eye on DORA’s socials for updates on Reformscape!

The post DORA Newsletter Nov. 2023 appeared first on DORA.

Co-Chairs of DORA

Ginny Barbour

“I am very excited and honoured to be joining with Kelly Cobey as DORA co-chair to work with DORA and the wider community.  My interest in the problems associated with metrics dates from my time as  an editor at PLOS Medicine back in 2004. More recently I have been involved in other work on research assessment, including the development of the Hong Kong Principles. Working in the university sector at Queensland University of Technology has given me a whole new side of thinking about metrics, including how metrics are intimately tied up with research culture, integrity, equity and, increasingly, open science.” Learn more about Ginny Barbour here.

Kelly Cobey

“It is a great privilege to be joining Ginny Barbour as DORA co-chair. I stand united with Ginny in a commitment to drive forward DORA’s mission to advocate for a fair, equitable, and responsible system of assessing research impact. I am excited to collaborate further with the Steering Committee and the broader DORA community, on this exciting journey. My interest in DORA related initiatives stems from my own experiences as an early career researcher, and from my program of metaresearch on open science implementation. I look forward to working with the community to create, implement, and evaluate novel approaches to research assessment.” Learn more about Kelly Cobey here.

Combined statement

“Together we look forward to taking forward the fantastic work that Stephen Curry has done in leading DORA and are very grateful for his leadership as first Chair of DORA and for his guidance to the Steering Committee and the DORA organisation over many years.”

Vice-Chair of DORA

Rebecca Lawrence

“I feel very privileged to be elected as Vice-Chair of DORA, and am excited to be working with co-Chairs Ginny Barbour and Kelly Cobey to take DORA on the next stage of its journey. As an early signatory of DORA, I see the shift to responsible research assessment as the most crucial change required in the scholarly ecosystem to enable us to collectively benefit from open research practices that promise to accelerate research progress so that it can be translated into new knowledge. This is essential if we are to successfully tackle society’s biggest and most urgent challenges, and hence I am looking forward to working with the community to encourage proactive implementation of new ways of working across the system.” Learn more about Rebecca Lawrence here.

The post DORA Welcomes New Co-Chairs and Vice Chair appeared first on DORA.