Comment on:
The following comment refers to this/these guideline(s)
Guideline 5
Dimensions of performance and assessment criteria
To assess the performance of researchers, a multidimensional approach is called for; in addition to academic and scientific achievements, other aspects may be taken into consideration. Performance is assessed primarily on the basis of qualitative measures, while quantitative indicators may be incorporated into the overall assessment only with appropriate differentiation and reflection. Where provided voluntarily, individual circumstances stated in curricula vitae – as well as the categories specified in the German General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) – are taken into account when forming a judgement.
Explanations:
High-quality research is oriented towards criteria specific to individual disciplines. In addition to the generation of and critical reflection on findings, other aspects of performance are taken into consideration in the evaluation process. Examples include involvement in teaching, academic self-governance, public relations, and knowledge and technology transfer; contributions to the general good of society may also be recognised. An individual’s approach to research, such as an openness to new findings and a willingness to take risks, is also considered. Appropriate allowance is made for periods of absence due to personal, family or health reasons or for prolonged training or qualification phases resulting from such periods, and for alternative career paths or similar circumstances.
Reforming research assessment
Guideline 5 emphasises that research achievements must be evaluated based on transparent and verifiable assessment criteria. These criteria should reflect the various dimensions of a researcher’s outputs, with a particular focus on originality, quality and relevance. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) provides a normative and practically applicable reference framework for this purpose.
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)
DORA was adopted in 2013 with the aim of counteracting assessment practices based on the widespread but methodologically questionable use of publication-based metrics, in particular the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). The JIF is an indicator of the frequency with which articles in a given journal are cited. It is calculated by relating the number of citations in a given year to the number of publications in the two preceding years (Lewandowski 2006). According to DORA, the JIF is not suitable for assessing the quality of individual research outputs or academic careers, nor was it ever intended for that purpose. Its use is said to entail structural distortions, discipline-specific inequalities and incentives for strategic manipulation. For this reason, DORA calls on research institutions and funding organisations to avoid using journal-based metrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), as a measure of the quality of individual research articles, and instead to focus their assessment on the quality of the research content itself, while acknowledging the diversity of research outputs.
The Practical Guide
Published in 2025, the Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Performing Organizations translates the DORA principles into practical steps research institutions can implement, offering hands-on guidance, resources and illustrative examples for the ongoing development of responsible assessment practices. In alignment with Guideline 5, it differentiates between multiple dimensions of research assessment. The assessment criteria set out therein are expanded to include contributions to the promotion of research integrity, for example.
The Practical Guide also consolidates existing resources and tools. For instance, the referenced Researcher Impact Framework distinguishes between knowledge generation, career and collaboration development, support for the research community and societal impact, while the SPACE rubric offers structure and support for self-assessment and the further development of institutional assessment practices, for example.
Further links
The comment belongs to the following categories:
GL5 (General)
Keywords:
performance assessment