Specific Considerations for Key Research Exercises (DORA)

Promotion Reviews of Internal Candidates

  • Applicants for promotion review should be strongly discouraged from including journal-level metrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor, in relation to any of their publications.
     
  • Author-level metrics, such as the h-index, vary between sources, and therefore must be used with caution, if at all. If applicants choose to use such metrics, they should be used in narrative sections as evidence to support the influence or progression of their research activity. Applicants should justify the choice of any author-level metrics they include, and should refrain from any explicit ranking or comparative evaluation of their metrics relative to other authors in Cambridge or elsewhere.
     
  • In disciplines where the use of citation-based paper-level metrics is considered appropriate, applicants may use these, for example to highlight the influence of a particular research output. In such cases, internal applicants should be encouraged to use metrics such as the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) provided via the Dimensions link on the University’s Symplectic system where it is available and appropriate within their discipline. Raw citation counts should be discouraged in favour of the above.
     
  • Applicants are encouraged to include a wide range of potential research impacts beyond peer-reviewed publications. Accepted preprints with DOIs are acceptable as part of the list of publications submitted by applicants. Other acceptable research outputs may include, but are not limited to, datasets, databases and software, patents and other commercial activities, translation and application of research outputs, contributions to public engagement and policy impacts.
     
  • Applicants are encouraged to describe how their research activity contributes to and is compliant with the University’s open research policy (https://www.openresearch.cam.ac.uk/cambridge/policies-frameworks/open-research-position-statement).

Probation Reviews

  • Probation reviews will generally follow the guidance for promotion reviews. The probation period is particularly important in setting expectations about research culture and evaluation of research performance in the University. Supervisors of probationary staff should pay special attention to communicating the School’s commitment to the DORA principles, including guidance on how a diverse range of outputs will be evaluated by the committee assessing each individual’s performance at the end of their probation period.
     
  • Performance criteria for successful completion of a probation period, as agreed in advance with recently appointed staff, should not include lists of target journals, or any other publication criteria explicitly or implicitly informed by journal-level metrics.

Recruitment Processes

  • All job descriptions etc should clearly state that the University supports the principles of DORA as follows: “The University of Cambridge is a signatory to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and we are committed to assessing research on the basis of its merits rather than the journal or venue in which it is published. Applicants should not include Journal Impact Factors or journal titles as a proxy for research quality in their applications.”
     
  • If article- or paper-level metrics are permitted to be used as part of the assessment process, it must be clearly stated in the guidance to applicants which metrics are admissible, and the limitations of any such metrics must be acknowledged. In disciplines where the use of citation-based paper-level metrics is considered appropriate, applicants may use these, for example to highlight the influence of a particular research output. Applicants should be encouraged to use Field Normalised or Weighted indices appropriate to the discipline such as the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) provided via the Dimensions link on the University’s Symplectic system, or appropriate equivalents, rather than raw citation counts .
     
  • Author-level metrics, such as the h-index, vary between sources, and therefore must be used with caution. If applicants choose to use such metrics, they must only be used in narrative sections as evidence to support the influence or progression of their research activity. Applicants should justify the choice of any author-level metrics they include, and should refrain from any explicit ranking or comparative evaluation of their metrics relative to other authors in Cambridge or elsewhere
     
  • Applicants may be encouraged to highlight a subset of specific research outputs and provide a brief narrative on their importance. For example, applicants may be asked to highlight a select subset of what they consider to be their most important research outputs and provide a brief narrative account of their significance.