Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Comparative analysis evaluates CoARA principles in the CNR Senior Researcher competition, suggesting implications for interdisciplinary assessments.
This paper presents a comparative and critical documentary analysis of the evaluation criteria adopted in the CNR Senior Researcher competition considering CoARA principles. It integrates a descriptive assessment of the structure of the criteria with a critical examination of their implementation across the 35 disciplinary areas. The results reveal a shared conceptual framework, alongside significant variability in practical application. In particular, the analysis highlights differences in the use of bibliometric indicators, the recognition of non-traditional research outputs, and the internal consistency of evaluation procedures. Humanities and social sciences generally show stronger alignment with content-based and qualitative evaluation approaches, whereas scientific and technological areas tend to combine broader output recognition with a more structured use of journal-based indicators. These findings suggest that disciplinary contexts play a key role in shaping how general principles of responsible research assessment are interpreted and operationalized. Future work should integrate outcome-based validation.
Salzano et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: