Open MERIT: Responsible research assessment, done right.

Open MERIT supports researchers, research-performing and research-funding organizations in building robust, quality-oriented and evidence-based application and assessment systems.

Resources

The MERIT Portal is grounded in evidence from policy analysis, literature reviews, and best practices, and it aligns with leading international frameworks such as:

Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA)

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

Science Europe 

Charité and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité have both signed the CoARA recommendations and committed to implement research assessment reforms for quality and impact-oriented assessments. The iterative Action Plan to support the translation of the EU recommendations on research assessment reform (CoARA) into organizational practice at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) 2024-2028 - Part 1 can be found here. 

Further literature on which MERIT is based: 

  • Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2013). Assessing the accuracy of the h- and g-indexes for measuring researchers' productivity. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 64, 1224–1234.

  • ACUMEN. (2014). Guidelines for Good Evaluation Practice with the ACUMEN Portfolio. European Commission, 7th Framework Programme, SP4 - Capacities, Science in Society 2010, Grant Agreement: 266632.

  • Aubert Bonn, N., & Bouter, L. (2023). Research assessments should recognize responsible research practices. Narrative review of a lively debate and promising developments. In E. Valdés & J. A. Lecaros (Eds.), Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume II. Collaborative Bioethics (Vol. 3). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29455-6_27

  • Bordignon, F., Chaignon, L., & Egret, D. (2023). Promoting narrative CVs to improve research evaluation? A review of opinion pieces and experiments. Research Evaluation, 32(2), 313–320.

  • Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio, 5. 

  • Charité & BIH. (2025). Action Plan to Support the Translation of the EU Recommendations on Research Assessment Reform (CoARA) into Organizational Practice at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) 2024–2028 – Part 1: Introduction, Status Quo and Perspectives of Internal Actors (2024–2025). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15111279

  • Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. (2022). Agreement on reforming research assessment. Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. https://coara.eu/agreement/the-agreement/

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2022). Wissenschaftliches Publizieren als Grundlage und Gestaltungsfeld der Wissenschaftsbewertung: Herausforderungen und Handlungsfelder. Positionspapier. Bonn.

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2022, June 21). Was ist Open Access? https://www.dfg.de/de/foerderung/foerdermoeglichkeiten/programme/infrastruktur/lis/open-access/was-ist-open-access

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2023, August 16). DFG Chancengleichheit - Fragen zum Lebenslauf. https://www.dfg.de/de/grundlagen-themen/grundlagen-und-prinzipien-der-foerderung/chancengleichheit/antragstellende-gefoerderte/faq-lebenslauf

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2024, April 3). Vermeidung von Bias in wissenschaftlichen Urteilsbildungsprozessen. https://www.dfg.de/de/grundlagen-rahmenbedingungen/grundlagen-und-prinzipien-der-foerderung/chancengleichheit/bias

  • Dimensions. (2022). What is the FCR? How is it calculated?  https://plus.dimensions.ai/support/solutions/articles/23000018848-what-is-the-fcr-how-is-it-calculated-

  • DORA. (2024). Guidance on the responsible use of quantitative indicators in research assessment. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10979644

  • DORA. (2013). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/

  • Dougherty, M., & Horne, Z. (2022). Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences. R. Soc. Open Sci., 9, 220334. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334

  • European University Association. (2019). The European University Association and Science Europe join efforts to improve scholarly research assessment methodologies. https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/joint%20statement%20eua-se%20on%20research%20assessment.pdf

  • Fritch, R., Hatch, A., Hazlett, H., & Vinkenburg, C. (2021). Using Narrative CVs. https://zenodo.org/record/5799414#.YeM-41lOlPY

  • Glänzel, W., Moed, H. F., Schmoch, U., & Thelwall, M. (Eds.). (2019). Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (1st ed.). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3

  • Hatch, A., & Schmidt, R. (2020). Rethinking research assessment: Unintended cognitive and system biases. DORA.

  • Hutchins, B. I., et al. (2016). Relative citation ratio (RCR): A new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. PLoS Biology, 14(9), e1002541.

  • iCite. (2024). https://icite.od.nih.gov/analysis

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Thombs, B. D. (2019). A user’s guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors. Eur J Clin Invest, 49, e13151. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13151

  • Light, R., Gullickson, A., & Harrison, J. A. (2025, January 24). Inequality in measuring scholarly success: Variation in the h-index within and between disciplines. PLoS One, 20(1), e0316913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316913

  • Margherita, A., Elia, G., & Petti, C. (2022). What is quality in research? Building a framework of design, process and impact attributes and evaluation perspectives. Sustainability, 14(5), 3034.

  • Moher, D., et al. (2020). The Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biology, 18(7), 1–14.

  • Quaia, E., & Vernuccio, F. (2022, May 1). The H index myth: A form of fanaticism or a simple misconception? Tomography, 8(3), 1241–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography8030102

  • Rethinking Health – Charité 2030. (2024). https://www.charite.de/en/charite/about_us/strategic_direction_2030/

  • Rousseau, R., Zhang, L., & Hu, X. (2019). Knowledge integration: Its meaning and measurement. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Springer, Cham.

  • Saenen, B., et al. (2021). Reimagining academic career assessment: Stories of innovation and change. Case study report. DORA, EUA, and SPARC Europe: Brüssel.

  • San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. (2012). Putting science into the assessment of research.

  • Science Europe. (2020). Recommendations on research assessment processes in position statement of Science Europe.

  • Schmidt, R. (2022). Rethinking research assessment: Debiasing committee composition and processes. DORA.

  • Steck, N., Stalder, L., & Egger, M. (2020). Journal- or article-based citation measure? A study of academic promotion at a Swiss university. F1000Research, 9, 1188.

  • The BIH's Mission and Strategy – Strategic Research Program 2023–2027. (2024). https://www.bihealth.org/de/ueber-uns/mission-und-strategie#c40504

  • Towards a Reform of the Research Assessment System – Scoping Report. (2021). European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brüssel.

  • UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on Open Science. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546

  • Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 63, 406–415. 

  • Wissenschaftsrat. (2005). Empfehlungen zur Ausgestaltung von Berufungsverfahren (Drs. 6709-05). Jena. https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/6709-05.html

  • Wissenschaftsrat. (2011). Empfehlungen zur Bewertung und Steuerung von Forschungsleistung (Drs. 1656-11). Halle. https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/1656-11