IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf035..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond impact factors? Lessons from the Dutch attempt to transform academic research assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Rushforth

Abstract

A growing science reform movement has emerged over the past decade to address dysfunctions in academic research assessment, with several national and transnational stakeholder initiatives promoting and coordinating collective action. This paper offers an analytic commentary on one such effort: the Dutch national Recognition and Rewards program. Since its launch in 2019, the initiative has become one of the most advanced and coordinated national reform programs of its kind. The progress and development to date of this national reform effort is considered, drawing on several theoretical strands to make sense of developments. I make the case that the initiative has been largely effective in mobilizing formal organizational support from key stakeholders in Dutch research, but significant vulnerabilities remain, particularly regarding uncertain buy-in and implementation by rank-and-file academics—the ultimate implementers of the envisioned changes. Although some of the dynamics discussed here are specific to the Dutch context, the question of how to bridge the implementation gap between organization-led change programs and day-to-day academic research culture will be, I believe, a crucial one for equivalent initiatives globally. The paper ends with some suggestions for tackling this important challenge.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Rushforth, 2025. "Beyond impact factors? Lessons from the Dutch attempt to transform academic research assessment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-035..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf035.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf035
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf035.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.