Beyond metric reductionism: assessment creep as an emerging risk of research evaluation reform

Abstract

Recent research assessment reforms have successfully challenged the overreliance on simplistic quantitative indicators and promoted broader approaches to evaluation. This paper argues that these reforms may also generate a new risk: assessment creep, understood as the gradual accumulation of evaluation criteria without sufficient attention to how they are prioritised and combined. While criteria such as open science, societal impact, international collaboration, leadership, and mentoring may each be valuable, their proliferation can reduce transparency and make evaluation systems more difficult to understand and scrutinise. Less transparent systems may also make it harder to distinguish legitimate expert judgement from arbitrary decision-making and to detect favouritism or other forms of unwarranted advantage. Drawing on recent debates surrounding responsible research assessment, the paper suggests that the next challenge is not choosing between metrics and expert judgement, but designing evaluation systems that remain coherent, transparent, and accountable as they become increasingly complex.