A Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Performing Organizations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
"A Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Performing Organizations" provides action-oriented guidance, resources, and illustrative examples, for research performing organizations (RPOs) who are looking to shape and deliver responsible research assessment (RRA) practices. This includes RPOs who are looking to create an RRA strategy, organizations wanting to reform existing practices, and organizations simply wanting to take steps towards more holistic and inclusive approaches to research assessment. One approach to research assessment certainly does not fit all, so the Guide is intended to be an inspirational tool. It is discipline-agnostic, flexible, and is intended to be adaptable to diverse organizational and disciplinary contexts by users. We envision the Practical Guide being modified and updated over time - and especially being enriched with real examples and through feedback from research performing organizations as they start to use it. The Practical Guide has been co-developed especially with interest holders who met January 31, 2025 in Maryland, USA, whose valuable contributions we acknowledge with appreciation. We also thank the helpful feedback from DORA Steering Committee Members Sean Sapcariu and Bernd Pulverer. We are grateful to Janet Catterall for her help in compiling and organizing the references and supporting resources mentioned in the Guide. The Guide was originally published in English, and as of June 2026 it has now been translated to Portuguese and Japanese. We thank the Brazilian and Japanese communities for their initiatives. The Practical Guide has been created as part of Project TARA and, alongside Reformscape, the Building Blocks for Impact, and the Debiasing Committee Composition, forms a suite of tools designed to help organizations who are seeking to reform research assessment practices. Project TARA is supported by Arcadia, a family charitable foundation that helps people to record cultural heritage, to conserve and restore nature, and to promote open access to knowledge, whom we thank. Since 2002 Arcadia has awarded more than $1.2 billion to organizations around the world. As of May 2026, the RPO Practical Guide has a sister volume for Research Funding Organizations, which has been created in collaboration with the Global Research Council RRA Working Gorup and Science Europe. The RFO Practical Guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the RRA Self-Assessment Tool for Funders, a diagnostic tool that enables funders to self-assess their processes and plan for more structured implementation of RRA aligned with global practices, developed by the Global Research Council RRA Working Group in collaboration with DORA. This publication is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial CC BY-NC. This information may be freely used, copied and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the source is acknowledged. Authors are ordered alphabetically by surname.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,032 | 0,060 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».