Divergence between Perceived and Desired Criteria for Assessing Researchers: Results from a 2025 Cross-Center Survey at the Helmholtz Association

The Helmholtz Open Science Office (OS Office) is the central hub for open science within the Helmholtz Association, Germany’s largest scientific organization with 18 research centers across six research areas. It contributes to national and international open science developments and guides reforms in research assessment. In February 2025, the OS Office signed the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA) and joined the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), reflecting its commitment to responsible, quality-oriented evaluation practices. To support research assessment reforms across the 18 Helmholtz Research Centers, the OS Office and the Helmholtz Working Group Open Science established the cross-cutting Helmholtz Task Group Research Assessment in March 2025. This bottom-up initiative aims to inform researchers and management about national and international developments in the fields of research assessment and evaluation, increase the visibility of ongoing research assessment reform efforts within the Helmholtz Association, and provide a platform for identifying and developing new quality-oriented research assessment systems and tools. To support these goals with an empirical evidence base, the Task Group conducted a short cross-center survey among Helmholtz researchers and research-related staff. The purpose of the survey was twofold: first, to understand which criteria researchers perceive as currently shaping performance evaluations and career decisions; and second, to identify which criteria they believe should be considered in the future. The survey was conducted from June 23, 2025 to September 23, 2025 as an anonymous online questionnaire targeting all 18 Helmholtz Centers and covering all six research areas. In total, 1,145 responses were collected. The survey reveals a broad consensus on the need to reform towards more value-based evaluation criteria as well as important disciplinary and role-based differences across professional positions. The data provides an empirical basis for developing modular CV formats, revised evaluation guidelines, and center-level implementation strategies. More broadly, it contributes to the international discourse on reforming research assessment by offering large-scale, institutionally grounded evidence from a major research organization.