A new EC report finds assessment reform’s core commitments lag behind support measures, progress is real but blocked by decisions outside institutions’ control.
The assessment of research proposals is the beating heart of the research sector, central to deciding who gets funded and who doesn’t. Research funders across Europe face record numbers of applications (Horizon Europe calls have reported increases of more than 30% in a single year in some areas) alongside a shift toward top-down funding instruments and growing use of AI in application and assessment. Keeping research assessment fit for purpose, equal, and adapted to this changing landscape is essential. Against this backdrop, the European Commission and the wider research community have recognised this need. Reforming research assessment is therefore a structural policy of the European Research Area (ERA). However, beyond the Commission, a growing number of initiatives are working to advocate for, implement and coordinate reform in how research quality and impact are assessed. A recent independent expert report published by the European Commission assesses progress made under two of these initiatives: the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA) and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA).
ARRA, signed in 2022, rests on four core commitments: to recognise the diversity of contributions to research according to the needs and nature of the research; to base assessment primarily on qualitative evaluation via peer review, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators; to abandon inappropriate uses of journal- and publication-based metrics; and to avoid the use of rankings in assessment (see SwissCore article from 2022). CoARA is the coalition of organisations that have come together to implement these commitments in practice. As of early 2026, ARRA counted 921 signatories, 800 of which are formal CoARA members. ARRA has 22 signatories from Switzerland of which 16 are formal CoARA members.
The report Implementing Research Assessment Reform draws on quantitative analysis of 263 submitted ARRA action plans, qualitative analysis of 235 of these plans, and in-depth interviews with 15 signatories. Instead of looking for successes or failures, the report captures a moment of transition: “from early commitment and agenda-setting towards sustained implementation at scale.”
The report shows that progress is real but uneven. ARRA has succeeded in mobilising commitment, particularly among universities, which dominate the signatory pool. However, translation into everyday assessment practice remains uneven, as coverage of the four core commitments trails behind supporting commitments like resourcing and communication. Coverage of the core commitments decreases progressively: Commitment 1 (recognising diverse contributions) is addressed specifically in most action plans, while Commitment 4 (avoiding rankings) is detailed in only around one in six. The biggest obstacle isn’t organisations’ willingness but their dependency on external decisions. Many institutions can’t finish implementing reforms because they’re waiting on national laws, funder rules, or ministry decisions outside their control. Enablers of progress include senior leadership buy-in, strong HR functions, and participation in networks, while key barriers include limited staff time, decentralised governance, and reform fatigue.
The report sits alongside two other recent contributions to reforming research assessment. In May 2026, the global initiative DORA, the Global Research Council (GRC)’s Responsible Research Assessment (RRA) Working Group and Science Europe jointly published a practical guide for funding organisations to implement responsible research assessment, thus creating a “one-stop-shop” of tested interventions and case studies for funders, designed to be used alongside the GRC’s RRA Self-Assessment Tool.
CoARA’s own Working Group Towards an Inclusive Evaluation of Research (TIER) recently mapped current practices and its bias survey showed the same uneven patterns the EC report identifies from another angle: publication counts, grant income and citation metrics remain the most heavily weighted criteria in both excellence and career assessment, while teaching, peer review, outreach and mentorship remain undervalued, a pattern that is widely seen as reinforcing gendered and other structural biases.
The report explicitly positions itself as a baseline for ERA’s structural policy on research assessment, and its final chapter sets out priorities: bridging the policy-to-practice gap through disciplinary engagement, sustaining exchange at regional, national and international level, and improving alignment between funder, national and institutional frameworks. It flags research assessment reform as a lever for other ERA goals, such as open science, gender equality, research careers, and notes that reform in turn depends on progress in areas such as open, non-commercial assessment infrastructures.