ArticleOpen research Europe2026
Mind the Gap: From Policy to Practice at CNR An Analysis of Career Advancement Criteria in Light of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment.
Article in Open research Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study examines the practical implementation of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment within the National Research Council of Italy by analysing the 2023 competitive procedures for the career progression of researchers and technologists. As the institution formally adopted the reform to shift towards a more responsible and qualitative evaluation framework, this research investigates the extent to which these high-level commitments were applied within the calls by the individual evaluation committees. Methods: A systematic qualitative and quantitative analysis was conducted on 4,090 evaluation criteria established by 90 independent evaluation committees. The criteria were examined to assess their alignment with the four core commitments of the Agreement and the inclusion of Open Science principles. Results: Results indicate a significant gap between institutional policy and actual practice: most committees do not fully recognise the diversity of research contributions, often undervaluing or excluding non-traditional outputs, such as teaching and evaluation activities, or public and policy engagement. Quantitative and mechanical metrics continue to be widely used in researcher evaluations, with journal-based indicators often used to assess research quality. Regarding Open Science practices, they appeared only sporadically in the assessed criteria. Conclusions: These findings suggest that traditional evaluation practices persist at the committee level, despite formal institutional reform. The study highlights that high-level policy adoption alone is insufficient without robust guidance to operationalise reform principles during the assessment process. This research provides insights into the challenges of transitioning from policy to practice in research assessment within a large, multidisciplinary Research Performing Organisation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.