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. (Mon,) studied this question.