Review of 'Pursuit of Knowledge: A Charter for Academic Renewal' by Paul B. Rainey and colleagues

Review of ‘Pursuit of Knowledge: A Charter for Academic Renewal’ by Paul B. Rainey and colleagues This paper discusses problems in the evaluation of research and researchers, and the troubling consequences of these problems, for instance in the scientific publishing system. The paper also proposes a potential solution, consisting of the combination of a Charter for Scholarly Integrity and Purpose and a Coalition for Scholarly Integrity. I appreciate the sharp analysis presented by the authors of the current state of the research system. I share the concerns of the authors and I agree with most of their analysis. I am not convinced, however, that the solution proposed by the authors will be effective. Below I elaborate on these issues. The authors refer to “policymakers and administrators who do not understand the process of inquiry”. They also state that “reversing the current trajectory will require deliberate, coordinated action by universities, funders, governments, and the academic community itself”. Here I feel it is important to recognize that “policymakers and administrators” who are in leadership roles at universities are usually themselves academics. So I doubt whether it is correct to claim that these people “do not understand the process of inquiry”. The same applies to funders. People in leadership roles at funders are often themselves academics. Also, decision making about research funding is to a significant degree carried out by reviewers and panelists who are academics. My experience is that many funding organizations are making serious efforts to change their way of working (e.g., moving away from overreliance on metrics, adopting narrative CVs, and so on), but they are making limited progress because their reviewers and panelists, so members of the academic community, tend to stick to more traditional ways of working. I have doubts about the solution proposed by the authors because it seems very similar to what we already have. In particular, the idea of a Charter for Scholarly Integrity and Purpose appears to resemble the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13480727) and the idea of a Coalition for Scholarly Integrity seems similar to the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). The four core activities that the authors propose for the Coalition for Scholarly Integrity are all, at least to a certain degree, already being undertaken by CoARA. The authors state that “reform must not feel imposed but co-created. Only then will it carry the legitimacy and momentum required to endure.” This is precisely the approach taken by CoARA. The authors comment that existing initiatives “have not yet delivered the systemic change required”. This is indeed true, but this is also understandable, since a co-creation approach to reform will almost inevitably be a slow and time-consuming process. The authors also suggest the possibility of “an accreditation system—analogous to ISO standards—through which institutions commit to, and are recognised for, practices that sustain scholarly integrity”. I think this is an interesting idea that could help to strengthen the reputational benefit for organizations that implement reform. It would be interesting to explore how such an accreditation system could be developed for the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. I am less enthusiastic about the idea of developing an accreditation system for a new statement such as the Charter for Scholarly Integrity and Purpose proposed by the authors. Many policy makers are complaining there are already too many different statements, declarations, coalitions, and other initiatives. The landscape of reform initiatives is getting increasingly complex and crowded, and adding even more initiatives to this landscape is therefore probably not a good idea. I believe a better approach is to build on existing initiatives and to strengthen coordination between these initiatives. Let me conclude this review by emphasizing that, despite my doubts about the solution proposed by the authors, I very much value the authors’ contribution to the debate about reform in the research system. I look forward to seeing other responses to the proposal made by the authors, and I hope the authors will continue their engagement with the reform movement. Ludo Waltman November 30, 2025