The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) has grown from a 2022 European-led commitment into a global movement of over 800 organisations across higher education, funding agencies, and research bodies. By mid-2026, CoARA is no longer a position statement; it is an active implementation programme with working groups, national chapters, and concrete tools. For research offices, the question has shifted from "should we sign?" to "what does aligning our institution actually look like?" This article answers that question with practical detail, grounded in the way a modern RIMS supports CoARA-aligned practice.
What CoARA actually commits signatories to
The CoARA Agreement rests on four core principles. One: recognise the diverse contributions and careers of researchers — outputs, peer review, mentorship, leadership, data and software, public engagement. Two: base research assessment primarily on qualitative evaluation, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators. Three: abandon inappropriate uses of journal- and publication-based metrics (especially Journal Impact Factor) as proxies for individual quality. Four: avoid use of rankings of research organisations in research assessment. The implication for daily practice: any assessment that reduces a researcher, group, or institution to a small number of journal-derived metrics is the kind of practice CoARA explicitly asks signatories to move away from.
The 2026 momentum
Three CoARA milestones in 2026 are worth a research office's attention. The 3rd CoARA National Chapters Forum in Madrid (March 2026) consolidated implementation roadmaps across twenty countries. The OI4RRA working group outputs — practical tools for open-infrastructure-based responsible assessment — were formally endorsed and added to the CoARA Collection in March 2026. The CoARA-DORA Asia-Pacific dialogue (June 2026) extends momentum beyond Europe — relevant for any institution outside the original European centre of CoARA activity.
How a CoARA-aligned research office actually operates
Aligning practice with CoARA is not a paperwork exercise; it is a redesign of how the office produces evaluation evidence. In practice, this means: broader output capture (not just journal articles — datasets, software, preprints, policy contributions, mentorship); contextual narrative alongside metrics so a panel sees what a researcher actually did and why it mattered; field-aware indicators rather than cross-field journal proxies; identifier reconciliation so the evidence base is accurate. None of this is achievable without a research-information foundation strong enough to surface the wider evidence — covered in our impact and open-science pillar.
The data infrastructure CoARA implementation needs
CoARA implementation is constrained by what your data system can present. Four capabilities matter: multi-source ingestion so non-Scopus output (open-access journals, regional venues, preprints) is captured fairly; identifier reconciliation via ORCID and ROR so the evidence base is correctly attributed; output type diversity so datasets, software, and policy contributions sit alongside articles; contextual narrative fields so the qualitative story can be captured per researcher and per unit. A RIMS that surfaces only counts and citations cannot support CoARA-aligned assessment.
Where to start in your institution
Begin with a coverage audit. Compare your institutional record against open sources for the same researchers — particularly in disciplines where preprints, datasets, or non-English publication is significant. The gaps are usually material, and closing them is the foundation. Then redesign one assessment process (promotion, hiring, or internal funding) end-to-end with CoARA principles before generalising. Local proof beats institutional declaration. The wider sequencing is covered in Buying and Deploying a RIMS.
What this looks like in production
Universitas Hasanuddin runs Discover RIMS across 2,500+ researchers, 15,300+ publications, and 18 faculties — with output reconciled across ORCID, Scopus, OpenAlex, Crossref, and Scimago. The breadth and accuracy of that evidence base is exactly what CoARA-aligned assessment requires: a researcher's full contribution captured, identifiers correct, journal-based proxies relegated to context rather than verdict.
Frequently asked questions
Do we have to sign CoARA to use its principles? No. The principles work as institutional practice regardless of signatory status; signing is a public commitment to apply them.
How does CoARA relate to DORA? CoARA is the broader, action-oriented coalition; DORA is the foundational declaration. Most CoARA signatories also subscribe to DORA. Together they shape the policy direction.
Does CoARA ban citation metrics? No. It asks signatories to use them responsibly — in context, alongside qualitative evidence, never as a proxy for individual quality.
Where to start
Discover RIMS provides the multi-source, identifier-reconciled, output-diverse foundation that CoARA-aligned assessment requires — so institutions can move from a declaration to a defensible practice.