Sure. Thank you.
I want to be clear that while we have reported on DORA and I'm familiar with it, I in no way speak for DORA or any of the signatories.
It's essentially a manifesto. There's actually another one called the Leiden Manifesto, which does something a bit different, but is getting at the same problem. It's looking at what is known as bibliometrics—I think that term came up previously in this hearing—and whether or not that is a good way to measure or to assess research.
I would also note that there are a number of very good bibliometrics scholars in Canada and around the world, but particularly in Canada, Vincent Larivière in Montreal has done a lot of important work in this area. I might commend his work and perhaps his testimony to you in the future, if he hasn't already.
In a short period of time, it's difficult to really go into detail about DORA and others, but the general idea is that other metrics, if need be, or just other ways to assess research—we heard about some of those previously on this panel—should be considered. For example, impact can be measured by whether or not research makes a difference. In other words, it literally has an impact. Has it been cited in policy documents? Has it led to change? Has it led to better outcomes?
This is a very downstream way to measure the impact of research. I would also argue there are other ways to measure whether or not a particular piece of research or a group of, in other words, findings in general, have contributed to whether we know more about the universe, biology or neuroscience. I think all of that, if we need to replace metrics such as the impact factor—again, we all need heuristics and we all rely on heuristics—are ways to do that.