Embracing change in research assessment, current practices and future collaborative approaches

Author: Steven Inchcoombe

The research landscape is undergoing a profound and rapid transformation. As we champion trust and integrity, open access and open science, and greater inclusivity and equity, the ways in which research is conducted and shared are evolving. Researchers are increasingly encouraged to engage with diverse audiences, share their research data, and collaborate across disciplines. This shift, as we move towards an increasingly open science environment, challenges the academic community to rethink how, researchers and their work, should be evaluated.   

Springer Nature has long advocated for a balanced approach to research assessment. As an early signatory of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), we recognise that traditional metrics – which can include a researcher's number of publications, citation count and h-index and impact factors - while historically significant and useful within specific remits, can’t capture the full spectrum of a researcher’s contributions.  It also needs to be kept in mind that researchers are evaluated for many different reasons, with unique needs and methodologies. The current systems adopted by the industry are no longer fit for purpose. 

In response, we are continuing our long-standing approach (Nature Research has been promoting alternative metrics since the early 1990’s) of actively challenging and adapting our practices to better support the needs of researchers, institutions and funding bodies as they evolve their assessment practices. Our new white paper - The state of research assessment: Researcher perspectives on evaluation practices - is our latest step towards achieving this goal. 

Drawing on the voices of over 6,600 researchers across all regions, career stages and disciplines, it is one of the largest surveys of its kind – and provides a lens through which we can understand the state of research assessment and the varied experiences, perceptions and wishes of researchers navigating this environment. 

Many of our learnings gave weight to discussions we had already had with our partners: that many activities researchers undertake are not appropriately considered within evaluation practices, and there is hope for greater representation of other contributions beyond research output.  Conclusions interestingly also reflected in a recent stakeholder meeting convened by PLOS, looking at the need for better recognition of all contributions to science.

However, we also uncovered some unexpected findings. On one hand, researchers were perhaps more positive than we’d expected about the ways they are evaluated. On the other, we also identified some tensions, including discrepancies between researchers' perceptions of the assessment process and established best practices, as well as conflicting opinions regarding qualitative versus quantitative indicators.  

As the research community, we can take several actions to improve research assessment. We can develop resources and training materials to help researchers navigate assessment processes and invest in systems that enhance these. We can encourage participation in research assessment reform initiatives to increase awareness and promote best practices. We can advocate for the recognition of diverse research outputs and emphasise the importance of contributions to society and support the monitoring of these.  

Addressing meaningful change in research assessment requires a collaborative approach – something that many of us agree on. 

What is Springer Nature doing to help drive that? 

• We remain focused on enabling a more holistic research assessment ecosystem as signatory of DORA. We are continuing to contribute to open dialogue on research assessment, via industry research and uphold DORA’s recommendations, such as providing diverse metrics and supporting responsible authorship, to inform collective efforts to address change.
• We are committed to working with the communities we serve to develop open metrics that better meet academic needs. Working across regions, disciplines and career stages to create a research culture that values and recognizes all contributions to foster the integrity of current and future research assessment processes. We pioneer new approaches to sharing open data, code, and protocols. Our single data policy and open code policy make it easier for researchers to share these outputs, and we work with the scientific community in a variety of ways to improve data management and publication. Our annual State of Open Data project, in partnership with Figshare and Digital Science, is the longest-running survey and analysis on open data. 
• We welcome our partners to engage in discussion with us about this topic, and to collaborate with us to work towards a more equitable research assessment future. We use our networks and platforms to share resources on research assessment reform and facilitate discussion on this topic. We partner with other organisations that support a transparent and open approach to research and research evaluation, such as Transparency in the Process of Science, New Frontiers of Peer Review consortium, Committee on Publication Ethics, and Open Researcher and Contributor ID. 
• We offer institutions and funders comprehensive tools and services to assess research performance. Nature Research Intelligence works with transparent metrics that demonstrate academic excellence, collaboration, and real-world impact. By leveraging diverse data sources, it delivers reliable insights, supports institutions in strategy decisions, and helps funders make informed choices. The Nature Index newsletter includes the latest Nature content related to research management and research assessment. 

By embracing a balanced, inclusive, and transparent approach, it is our hope that we can continue to build, with the community, a stronger foundation for sustainable and effective research evaluation in the future. 

Read the full white paper, The state of research assessment: Researcher perspectives on evaluation practices, and we encourage you to share your thoughts with us via our LinkedIn, Bluesky or X channels.