Working group Track E
Responsible research assessment
The Responsible research assessment working group develops vocabulary that supports DORA, CoARA, the Hong Kong Principles and the broader move away from impact-factor-driven evaluation. It defines narrative-CV modules, qualitative-indicator language, lay-summary structures and the metadata needed to evaluate contribution rather than venue. The group works with CoARA's working groups, DORA, the Royal Society, UKRI and the Wellcome so the same assessment vocabulary travels with a researcher across funders.
Charter and scope
What this working group covers
The Responsible research assessment working group develops vocabulary that supports DORA, CoARA, the Hong Kong Principles and the broader move away from impact-factor-driven evaluation. It defines narrative-CV modules, qualitative-indicator language, lay-summary structures and the metadata needed to evaluate contribution rather than venue. The group works with CoARA's working groups, DORA, the Royal Society, UKRI and the Wellcome so the same assessment vocabulary travels with a researcher across funders.
- DORA, CoARA, Leiden Manifesto and Hong Kong Principles vocabulary
- Narrative-CV modules and qualitative indicators
- R4RI, Royal Society, NIH Biosketch, ERC CV alignment
- Contribution-focused (rather than venue-focused) evaluation language
- Responsible-metrics framework terms
- Track-record statement vocabulary
- Reviewer-facing guidance for narrative formats
Composition
Current composition
Chair
Applications under review
Candidates are being assessed for the 2026 forming round. Two-year term, renewable once.
Submit your candidacy →Co-chair
Accepting candidates
Optional second chair, prioritised for regional or sector balance.
Submit your candidacy →Community seats
Accepting candidates for 12 seats
Seats are allocated against a published rubric covering domain expertise, institutional diversity, regional balance, and an explicit slot for early-career researchers.
Apply for a community seat →Deliverables
Planned and delivered deliverables
- Narrative-CV module library aligned across major funders
- Responsible-metrics vocabulary (DORA + CoARA + Leiden)
- Reviewer guidance for narrative formats
- Contribution-statement template for assessment use
- Implementer guidance for assessment-system vendors
Recent activity
Working-group cadence and milestones
Illustrative working-group cadence for the 2026 forming round. Substantive deliverables and meeting minutes will be linked here as the group convenes.
2026-05-15 · Milestone
Working group forming — call for chair candidates
Open call for chair and co-chair of the Responsible research assessment working group. Candidates are under review.
2026-04-22 · Release
Domain scope confirmed for v2026.2
Scope of the Responsible research assessment domain confirmed against the v2026.2 dictionary release plan.
2026-03-10 · Added
Forming round announced
CASRAI announced the 2026 forming round for all 24 working groups, with seat allocations and review rubric published.
Open consultations
Currently in public comment
Currently none open. Subscribe via /get-involved/comment for future calls.
External bodies
Standards and organisations we work with
Going deeper on CASRAI
Related CASRAI guidance
Adjacent working groups
Related working groups
How to join
Apply to a seat on this working group
This working group is receiving candidates for the 2026 forming round. The application is short — name, institution, ORCID iD (optional), the seat you are applying for, and a paragraph on why this domain. Decisions are returned within four weeks of the close of the open-call window.
FAQ
Frequently asked
- What is a narrative CV template?
A narrative CV template is a structured format that lets researchers describe their contributions, skills, and impact in prose rather than as a list of publications ranked by journal metrics. CASRAI's Responsible research assessment working group defines the modules and qualitative-indicator language used in these templates, aligning them with formats such as the UKRI Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI), the Royal Society's Résumé for Researchers, NIH Biosketch, and ERC CV conventions. The aim is metadata that lets contribution, rather than publication venue, travel with a researcher across funders.
- What are the CoARA commitments?
CoARA's commitments center on moving away from inappropriate reliance on journal-based metrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor, and instead assessing research and researchers on quality and diverse contributions using qualitative judgement supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators. CASRAI's working group supports these commitments by defining the shared vocabulary and metadata, including narrative-CV modules and qualitative-indicator terms, that CoARA's working groups and other stakeholders need to put them into practice consistently. The group develops this vocabulary in coordination with CoARA's own working groups.
- What is the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment?
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) calls on funders, institutions, and publishers to stop using journal impact factor as a proxy for the quality of individual research articles when making funding, hiring, and promotion decisions. CASRAI's Responsible research assessment working group aligns its responsible-metrics framework terms and contribution-focused evaluation language with DORA's aims, and works directly with DORA so that assessment vocabulary stays consistent across the organizations researchers interact with.
- What does this working group do?
The Responsible research assessment working group is the community body that drafts, reviews and ratifies dictionary entries for the Responsible research assessment domain. It maintains scope, cross-walks to adjacent standards and the cadence of public review. Its remit is summarised on this page; the canonical terms it stewards live at /dictionary/domain/responsible-assessment.
- Who can apply to join?
Working-group membership is open to qualified practitioners — researchers, research-office staff, librarians, publishers, repository managers, integrity officers, CRIS administrators, regulators and funders. Institutional membership is not required. The qualification test is competence and time, not affiliation. Apply via the working-group application form.
- What is the time commitment?
Cadence: Quarterly virtual sessions; two release windows per year (March and September).. Time commitment averages four hours per quarter for an active member, more for a chair. Asynchronous review happens between meetings via email. Chairs are recognised on the editorial masthead and serve a two-year term, renewable once.
- How are seats allocated?
Each working group has 12 community seats plus a chair and (optionally) a co-chair. Seats are filled by an open call reviewed against a published rubric: domain expertise, institutional diversity, regional balance, and an explicit slot for early-career researchers. Applications for the 2026 forming round are open and candidates are currently under review — see how to apply.
- Can my institution sponsor a seat?
Institutional sponsorship is welcome but is not a route to a guaranteed seat. Sponsors support meeting infrastructure, public-comment publication and contributor honoraria; they receive named acknowledgement on the working-group page and in release notes. Sponsorship enquiries go to [email protected]. Seat selection remains on merit.
All working groups
