Abstract:

European universities increasingly adopt the Human Resources Strategy for Researchers as a formal commitment to transparent, merit-based, and fair career development. Simultaneously, research assessment reform initiatives call for reduced reliance on quantitative publication metrics and greater emphasis on qualitative evaluation. Despite these commitments, many institutions continue to apply indicator-driven evaluation models that may conflict with responsible research assessment principles.

This study examines the structural tension between formal Human Resources Strategy for Researchers commitments and prevailing institutional researcher evaluation practices. Through normative and documentary analysis of European governance frameworks and university career regulations, the paper identifies inconsistencies between declared principles of fairness, transparency, and proportionality and operational procedures that remain heavily metric-based.

Rather than conceptualizing reform as procedural adjustment, the study argues for institutional redesign of research evaluation infrastructure. A structural governance model is proposed incorporating narrative researcher portfolios, qualitative peer review processes, structured reviewer training, and periodic external auditing mechanisms. The model seeks to align institutional practice with European-level commitments while preserving accountability and rigor.

By framing researcher assessment as a governance architecture rather than a technical scoring system, the paper contributes to ongoing debates on quality assurance, academic management, and institutional transformation in the European Higher Education Area. It highlights the importance of coherence between policy declarations and operational implementation for achieving meaningful reform.

Keywords:

HR4R, Research assessment reform, Responsible research evaluation, Academic governance, COARA.