Introduction

About this document

This document outlines SAPEA's strategy of diversity and inclusiveness with regard to the involvement of early- and mid-career researchers in its activities towards evidence-informed policymaking. SAPEA is committed to increasing the involvement of early- and mid-career researchers and seeks to address challenges they face in contributing to scientific advice.

About SAPEA

SAPEA's role in the Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission is to provide independent, high-quality reviews of the evidence to inform the policy recommendations made by the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors.

SAPEA is a consortium of academy networks, funded by Horizon Europe, representing a large number of academies from different countries. Through these networks, they bring together outstanding expertise from natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical, health, agricultural and social sciences, and the humanities.

SAPEA's mission

SAPEA's mission is threefold:

• to provide high-quality, timely and independent scientific evidence, together with evidence-based conclusions and policy options
• to strengthen the landscape of academies in Europe, providing opportunities for Academy Fellows and other leading experts to participate in SAPEA's activities
• to communicate and disseminate effectively the outputs of the Scientific Advice Mechanism and to undertake outreach activities that achieve tangible impact

SAPEA's strategy of diversity and inclusiveness

SAPEA accomplishes its mission by considering a wide range of available scientific evidence and maintaining the highest standard of excellence regarding the expertise that it provides. Diversity is a major consideration that helps to compensate for individual biases, and to provide sound, high-quality science advice. Science advice for policy is not only transnational and transdisciplinary, but also requires participation of experts with different perspectives and experiences. To address these requirements, SAPEA follows a dedicated strategy of diversity and inclusiveness¹ which is taken into account at all stages, such as in selecting experts, forming selection committees, and establishing other groups. It is also considered when planning the target audiences of communications activities.

The strategy includes the following characteristics of diversity:

• inter- and multi-disciplinarity
• involvement of experts from the wider scientific community, who are not Fellows of academies
• inclusion of early-career and mid-career researchers
• gender
• wide geographical coverage

SAPEA also takes into account the intersections of these parameters as a source of diversity ('intersectionality’).²

Considering SAPEA's mission and its strategy of diversity and inclusiveness, this document presents the details on SAPEA's strategy for increasing the involvement of early- and mid-career researchers. The strategy and its recommendations are informed by a wide range of sources, consultations with researchers, and evidence.

Commitment to EMCR engagement in SAPEA

Definition of 'early- and mid-career researchers'

In SAPEA:

• an early-career researcher (EMCR) is defined as a researcher who successfully completed their first doctoral degree (a PhD or equivalent) not more than 7 years ago — for example, recent PhD graduates and postdocs that have shown evidence of independent research, or in some cases, advanced PhD researchers
• a mid-career researcher (MCR) is defined as a researcher who successfully completed their first doctoral degree (a PhD or equivalent) between 8 and 19 years ago — for example, experienced postdocs, group and unit leaders, or early-stage professors
• a late-career researcher (LCR) is defined as a researcher who successfully completed their first doctoral degree (a PhD or equivalent) more than 19 years ago — for example, a tenured professor or a professor holding a university chair

Accordingly, early- and mid-career researchers (EMCR) are defined as those who completed their first doctoral degree not more than 19 years ago.

These definitions align to a large extent with the European Research Council's criteria for distinguishing between ECRs and MCRs, and are also meant to allow for similar extensions of these periods for reasons such as maternity, paternity, long-term illness, national service, clinical training, natural disasters, or seeking asylum:

The European Research Council offers:

• Starting Grants to early phase researchers defined as those who defended their first PhD or an equivalent degree between 2--7 years (inclusive) prior to the cut-off date, and
• Consolidator Grants to establishing independent researchers defined as those who defended their first PhD or an equivalent degree between 8--12 years prior to the cut-off date. The eligibility periods can be extended beyond 7 and 12 years for these grants, respectively, for documented circumstances such as maternity, paternity, long-term illness, national service, clinical training, natural disaster and seeking asylum.³

These career stage definitions fall in the spectrum of researcher career stages R2 (recognised researcher) and R3 (established researcher) in the proposed European framework to attract and retain research, innovation and entrepreneurial talents in Europe⁴ and the European Framework for Research Careers.⁵

The ECR definition aligns with the Global Young Academy's threshold of 7 years from the completion of a PhD or equivalent as the eligibility criterion for young academy membership.⁶ Similarly, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral Fellowship and the COST Action limit an early-career investigator's role to being within 8 years of the completion of the PhD.⁷

The strategy has set the upper limit of EMCRs to 19 years from the defence of the first doctoral degree or equivalent, instead of 12 years proposed by the European Research Council, to align SAPEA's understanding of EMCRs better with that of the young academies.

Young academies are recognised academic organisations formed by scientists and scholars at the beginning of their independent careers who have been selected for the excellence of their research and service and represent young scholars in society.⁸ Most of them are also affiliated with an established academy of sciences. According to policies implemented by young academies, researchers are typically eligible for a young academy membership until the age of 40, with young academy membership lasting for 5 years. Considering that a typical age for defending the first doctoral degree is 26 to 32 years, the limit of 19 years allows SAPEA to consider scholars who defended their doctoral degree at the age of 26 in the group of EMCRs just as young academies do.

Commitment to increase EMCR involvement

Science advice by SAPEA relies on the principles of relevance, excellence, transparency, independence, diversity, clarity about uncertainty, and ethics.

Implementing these principles, SAPEA prioritises excellence, viewed in conjunction with the relevance of the candidate's expertise to the scientific topic in question, and strives towards the engagement of highest-quality expertise through detailed and transparent selection procedures for Working Group (WG) members. While evaluating excellence, SAPEA has committed itself to recognising diversity in career paths and scientific outputs, and endorsed the CoARA principles of research assessment:⁹

The quality of the SAPEA Evidence Review Reports is inherently related to the excellence of scientific experts, as endorsed by the judgement of their peers and manifested in their various careers and research activities, including those beyond traditional forms of scientific output. The evaluation of scientific excellence takes into account the principles agreed by the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment.¹⁰

SAPEA views diversity as a major consideration that helps to provide sound, high-quality science advice:

Diversity is a major consideration that helps to compensate for individual biases, and to provide sound, high-quality science advice. This includes diversity in the range of pertinent disciplines covered in each Working Group, as well as in the members' social and geographical backgrounds and career stages, and the intersections of these parameters¹¹.

By valuing the diversity of contributions to research and by acknowledging diversity in research roles and careers, SAPEA's principles align with those of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA).¹²

Implementing these principles, SAPEA follows its Quality assurance guidelines and procedures on science advice for policy and society (2023), which include its strategy of diversity and inclusiveness.¹³ At the same time, they express SAPEA's commitment to consider diversity and inclusiveness at all stages of its activities, such as in selecting experts, forming selection committees, establishing other groups, as well as in communicating its work.

The same commitment is reflected in many academies represented in the SAPEA's consortium through its Academy Networks and echoed in the Scientific Advice Mechanism more broadly. The Group of Chief Scientific Advisors' report on best practices for science advice recommends ensuring a balance between early-career and established experts in working groups:

To reduce cognitive bias and arbitrariness in expert consultation, the following measures are recommended for informal expert panels: (...) Developing and weighing transparent scientific criteria for expert selection, such as excellence in the field, and the range of desired expertise profiles, a balance between early-career and established experts (plus any additional societal criteria such as geographical and gender balance).¹⁴

Moreover, young academies representing EMCRs have often been recognised as strong heralds of equality, diversity, and inclusiveness, offering examples for successful collaborations between recognised researchers and artists, and expanding academy membership to professionals and entrepreneurs to tackle transdisciplinary projects with relevant competencies and commitment. For example, the UK Young Academy selects members who are “innovative and proactive individuals working in new and emerging fields”. This is a direct response to renewing the European framework for research careers, aligned to Europe's need for transboundary partnerships. Being a new way of increasing the diversity of experts, this offers an additional form of collaboration beneficial for addressing Europe's long-term challenges.

SAPEA's strategy to increase the involvement of EMCRs is founded on these ideas and efforts and is aimed at ensuring the availability of EMCRs expertise at all stages of SAPEA's activities. To achieve that objective and in line with the findings of the recently published SAPEA Report on challenges for early and mid-career researchers in the provision of science advice: What are they and how do we overcome them?,¹⁵ which examines the obstacles that EMCRs face when providing scientific advice to policymakers, specific mechanisms for recognising and rewarding the contributions of EMCRs in science advice are recommended. This could include formal acknowledgments, certificates of participation, or even credits toward career advancement within their institutions.

Challenges for EMCRs in the provision of science advice

Europe hosts almost a quarter of the world's researchers (23.5%).¹⁶ Of the two million EU researchers, approximately 32% stay in the sector of higher education, while the majority move to industry and government sectors (56% and 10% share respectively).¹⁷ These choices are influenced by the competition for opportunities and funding in research institutions. Representing early- and mid-career researchers in such a large and diverse research ecosystem, young academies undergo a very selective process for membership and commit their members to collaborations and outreach activities beyond their own fields of research. Accordingly, they offer a diverse pool of excellent candidates for the delivery of high-quality evidence for SAPEA's activities.

At the same time, however, members of young academies and EMCRs more generally face significant hurdles that are potentially hindering participation in science-advice activities. This is not only because EMCRs face a particularly intense stage in their lives focused on building their career, publishing their research, applying for funding, moving towards stable employment, and establishing themselves as independent researchers, which often coincides with a demanding phase in private life as well when it comes to building a family and raising children.

Among the key challenges that can be identified -- corroborated by a systematic literature review¹⁸ and the findings of the above-mentioned 2024 SAPEA Report on challenges for early and mid-career researchers in the provision of science advice: What are they and how do we overcome them? -- the following are particularly worth mentioning:

• unsupportive research practices and culture, and counterproductive career expectations and evaluation: contending with job insecurity (including short-term contracts) and high levels of mobility, the need to build a research profile through scholarly publications and hierarchical decision structures constitute a challenge for engaging EMCRs in activities that are not considered academic core business. This is particularly since academic reward structures place a low priority on science advice
• lack of skills development and training: lack of skills to engage with decision-makers, and familiarity with policy processes, which often coincides with lack of opportunities and incentives to upskill
• low incentives for public engagement and open research: lack of prioritisation, incentives and training in communication as well as engagement with audiences outside one's field of specialisation
• lack of a functioning science-policy interface: relatively low interaction between academics -- especially EMCRs -- and policymakers; lack of opportunities for structured knowledge exchange, and absence of a common language
• insufficient networking, cooperation, and coordination opportunities
• young academies' limitations for engagement: while young academies offer a good platform for EMCRs engagement in science-for-policy activities across Europe, the challenges faced by young academies are considerable. Such challenges can stem from the fact that young academies are usually relatively small organisations, have not yet been established in all countries across Europe, operate with limited financial resources and only part-time or volunteer staff, have a high member turnover due to short terms of membership and appointments, are often dependent on oversight of 'senior' academies, and do not form a strong network with strategic partners across other EMCR organisations
• institutionalised biases: EMCRs describe tendencies in the practices or procedures in the institutions that they interact with to operate in ways that result in certain groups being advantaged and others being disadvantaged or devalued based on characteristics such as gender, family status, or geographical origin¹⁹
• bureaucratic complexities and other practical hurdles, such as the challenges of engaging in science advice remotely

EMCR engagement in SAPEA

EMCR involvement in previous working groups

Since the start in 2016, SAPEA has formed 16 working groups of experts, each producing an evidence review report on a specified topic requested by the European Commission. Table 2 provides an overview of the evidence review reports produced by these working groups, listing their acronyms, titles, and publication years.

Table 2: Evidence review reports produced by SAPEA working groups until 2024

Acronym	Name of evidence review report	Publication year
FFO	Food from the oceans	2017
NTAB	New techniques in agricultural biotechnology	2017
PPP	Improving authorisation processes for plant protection products in Europe	2018
CCU	Novel carbon capture and utilisation technologies	2019
MASOS	Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty	2019
TFA	Transforming the future of ageing	2019
NMP	A scientific perspective on microplastics in nature and society	2019
BoP	Biodegradability of plastics in the open environment	2020
SFS	A sustainable food system for the European Union	2020
SAFETE	A systemic approach to the energy transition in Europe	2021
Crisis	Strategic crisis management in the EU	2022
Cancer	Cancer screening	2022
SFC	Towards sustainable food consumption	2023
AI in science	Successful and timely uptake of artificial intelligence in science in the EU	2024
OH	One Health governance in the European Union	2024
SRM	Solar radiation modification	2024

A new SAPEA working group is usually formed when the Scientific Advice Mechanism receives a request for advice from the European Commission. This working group then produces the evidence review report, a detailed overview of the current scientific knowledge on the topic which the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors then uses to inform their policy recommendations. The working group works independently of the Advisors and of other external influences.²⁰

Members of the working group are selected based on their scientific excellence and the relevance of their expertise for the topic, in line with SAPEA's quality assurance guidelines, procedures on science advice for policy and society, and the strategy of diversity and inclusiveness. The responsibility for nominating experts lies with SAPEA's academy networks and their member academies. Suitable candidates for working group are identified through a call for nominations of experts to the academies, desk research (using bibliographic sources and others), and by approaching selected organisations which have expertise in the topic. Candidates identified through desk research or based on suggestions from external organisations are formally nominated via SAPEA's academy networks and their member academies. The final approval of working group members is made by the SAPEA board based on a proposal from the selection committee.²¹

Table 3: Experts across career stages in SAPEA working groups, 2016-2024

	ECRs	MCRs	LCRs	Total selected experts	Total EMCRs (ECRs+MCRs)
Totals	15	76	141	232	91
Proportions	6%	33%	61%	100%	39%

Table 3 summarises the distribution of experts across career stages in SAPEA's working groups since the start of the project. ECRs are represented with 6%, MCRs with 33% and LCRs with 61%.

In the 16 SAPEA working groups formed between 2016 and 2024, the composition of working groups, based on the total number of members and their career stages, was as follows:

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the composition of SAPEA working groups between 2016 and late 2024, focusing on the career stages of members: early-career researchers (ECRs), mid-career researchers (MCRs), and late-career researchers (LCRs). Together, the graphs provide insights into both the proportional distribution and absolute numbers of working group members.

Key observations:

• LCRs consistently form the majority in nearly all working groups.
• MCRs represent a significant and consistent presence, and were included in 14 out of the 16 working groups.²²
• ECRs were included in only 7 of the 16 working groups. They constitute 6% of the total number of working group members, and their involvement is concentrated in a few working groups.
• Combined, EMCRs (ECRs and MCRs) accounted for 39% of all working group members since the start of the project in 2016.

The data shows that ECRs and MCRs represent a smaller proportion of the working group members overall, strongly highlighting the necessity to further strengthen their engagement in future working groups.

Additional insights on recent working groups

In the most recent three working groups (AI in science, SRM and One Health), the distribution of career stages shifted slightly:

• ECRs accounted for 6.67% of members, maintaining a relatively small representation.
• MCRs and LCRs each accounted for 46.67%, reflecting a balanced distribution between mid-career and senior-level experts.²³

This data highlights the ongoing effort to involve experts at different career stages and the opportunity to further strengthen the representation of early-career researchers in future working groups.

Additional insights into the representation of academic disciplines within SAPEA working groups

Figure 3 presents the disciplinary composition of SAPEA working groups, and Figure 4 illustrates the extent to which the same disciplines were represented by 91 (39%; n=232) early- and mid-career members in SAPEA working groups, categorised into six fields based on the Frascati classification:²⁴ Natural Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Medical and Health Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities.

Figures 5 and 6 below illustrate the disciplinary composition of the 16 SAPEA working groups:

The distribution in Figures 5 and 6 highlights the diverse expertise represented in the SAPEA working groups, with strong representation from Social Sciences and Natural Sciences across several groups, demonstrating SAPEA's commitment to a multidisciplinary approach. This analysis provides a better understanding of how different disciplines contribute to each group, aligning with SAPEA's focus on balanced expertise across the 16 working groups. It ensures the inclusion of diverse perspectives and comprehensive evidence in SAPEA's reviews while also highlighting opportunities to enhance inclusivity in underrepresented fields such as Humanities and Agricultural Sciences. It should be noted, however, that from a statistical point of view, the total number of 232 working group members comprises a limited dataset. Based on this data, it is therefore not possible to fully assess whether the results show a particular trend. In addition, the expertise and disciplines needed for future SAPEA working groups depend on future topics requested of the European Commission.

Nominations of EMCRs for SAPEA working groups and results

The SAPEA consortium comprises six academy networks:

• Academia Europaea
• ALLEA (European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities)
• EASAC (European Academies' Science Advisory Council)²⁵
• Euro-CASE (European Council of Academies of Applied Sciences, Technologies and Engineering)
• FEAM (Federation of European Academies of Medicine)
• YASAS (Young Academies Science Advice Structure)

During the first years of its activities, until mid-2022, however, the young academies were not part of the consortium. None of these consortium partners were specifically dedicated to representing EMCRs. To address this gap, SAPEA reached out to the Young Academy of Europe, inviting it to suggest experts for SAPEA working groups. These suggestions, which included experts proposed by individual young academies, were subsequently forwarded by Academia Europaea to the SAPEA selection committees as formal nominations.

In December 2020, 14 young academies across Europe established the Young Academies Science Advice Structure (YASAS). Following the recommendation in the SAPEA Sustainability Plan (2020),²⁶ YASAS was invited to join the SAPEA consortium at the start of its second funding period in May 2022.

As a result, YASAS and its member young academies began to nominate experts for SAPEA working groups directly.

With the success rate of experts put forward by young academies being comparable to the success rate of experts nominated by other academies (around 21%) at the time YASAS joined the Consortium in mid-2022, one of the aims was to increase the number of nominations from young academies and in consequence to increase the EMCR participation in SAPEA working groups.

Table 4: Number of nominations and suggestions for SAPEA working group members

	2016-mid-2022	mid-2022 – 2024	2016-2024
Total number of nominations (all academies)	794	456	1250
thereof suggestions and nominations of YAs and YASAS	57	37	94
percentage	7	8,1	7,52
Total number of working group members in SAPEA WGs	170	62	232
thereof EMCRs in SAPEA WGs	59	32	91
percentage	35	52	39

As shown in the table above, since mid-2020 the percentage of EMCR nominations (compared to all nominations) has increased from 7% to 8.1%, resulting in 52% of EMCRs in SAPEA working groups. However, it should be noted, that from a statistical point of view, the total of 32 EMCRs in SAPEA working groups since mid-2022 (52%) represents a very small dataset. Based on this data, it is therefore not possible to fully assess whether the results in the sub-groups are stable and show a trend.

The selection of EMCRs in SAPEA working groups depends on multiple factors such as the number of nominations, the scientific expertise and excellence of the nominated experts, and the relevance of their expertise to the topic as requested by the European Commission. SAPEA will continue to monitor the number of EMCR nominations and the participation of EMCRs in working groups and will assess in more detail the factors contributing to their selection as SAPEA working group members.

Targets for EMCR participation in working groups

Background

SAPEA has established a strategy to set a target for ECR and MCR (and thus EMCR) participation in its working groups.²⁷

Indicators include:

• the number of ECR and MCR nominations to SAPEA working groups
• the number of ECRs and MCRs participating in SAPEA working groups
• the success rate of nominated ECRs and MCRs to become member of a working group

Setting a target by career stage also requires identifying a justifiable benchmark. Several considerations provide insights into defining this benchmark:

• European Research Council (ERC) grants: The proportion of grants awarded to ECRs is larger than grants awarded to MCRs or to those without a specified career stage. For example, in 2022, the ERC awarded 408 Starting Grants to ECRs, 321 Consolidator Grants to MCRs, and 218 Advanced Grants),²⁸ which are typically awarded to researchers with the highest number of years of expertise.
• COST Action target: The EU-funded COST Action programme, which supports research networks, has set a target of 40% participation for "young professionals and innovators," defined as researchers under the age of 40. While COST is not focused on science-for-policy activities, this target offers an interesting benchmark for EMCR inclusion.²⁹
• Proportion of doctoral students: According to the Eurostat data, there are approximately 2 million researchers (full-time equivalents) in the EU, including 610 000 doctoral students, who represent a key component of a country's potential research capability.³⁰ The data represents a ratio of 1:3 between doctoral students and the total employed researcher cohort and illustrates the significance of involving EMCRs in science-for-policy activities.³¹

These indicators together suggest that the goal to increase the overall participation of EMCRs in SAPEA activities is reasonable.

Building on the above considerations and the past engagement of EMCRs in its activities, SAPEA has set the following targets for future working group membership:

• at least 10% ECRs (always at least 1 person, independent of the group size)
• at least 30% MCRs (always at least 1 person, independent of the group size)

Thus, SAPEA aims to ensure that at least 40% of each working group's members will be EMCRs. For example, in a working group comprising ten experts, this would correspond to at least 1 ECR and 3 MCRs.

SAPEA is committed to implementing these targets in future working groups for evidence review reports and monitoring their implementation and progress. These targets will also apply to other SAPEA activities, such the composition of expert workshops. Furthermore, SAPEA will strengthen its focus on EMCRs in its communications activities.

Gender representation of EMCRs

SAPEA recognises and respects gender diversity and provides working group members with the opportunity to self-identify their gender. In view of gender representation, SAPEA aims to include no more than 60% of one gender in its working groups.

Based on non-self-identified data, since the start of the SAPEA project, women have made up 42% of the working group members.

Table 5. SAPEA working group members by gender and career stage (2016-2024)

	ECRs	MCRs	LCRs
% women of total	60	53	34
% men of total	40	47	66

As the figures in the table show, 60% of all ECRs, 53% of all MCRs and 34% of all LCRs in SAPEA working groups were women.

This also indicates that in the subgroup of LCRs, the percentage of men among working group members (66%) was higher than the target of "no more than 60% of one gender”. Accordingly, in this subgroup, SAPEA ought to increase the number of women in the working groups in order to achieve the target of "no more than 60% of one gender" also among the subgroup of LCRs.³²

Geographical coverage of EMCRs

SAPEA coordinates with the academies across Europe to achieve the targets for EMCR participation mentioned above. Additionally, YASAS engages with the young academies and with young scholar associations across Europe and supports initiatives to establish new young academies.

YASAS, established in 2020 with 14 academies, comprises in 2024 already 22 young academies across Europe³³ (see Table 6 below). These include two transnational academies, the Global Young Academy and the Young Academy of Europe. Six YASAS member academies are located in Horizon Europe Widening countries:³⁴ Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

This data shows that YASAS has already established a significant presence across Europe and demonstrates its ability to engage and bring together diverse EMCRs across national and institutional contexts. Moreover, by engaging with the broader young scholar associations, YASAS shows a commitment to inclusiveness and promoting participation beyond its formal membership. This is further strengthened by its efforts to support the establishment of new young academies. Further efforts focus on strengthening collaboration within YASAS, and increasing representation in underrepresented regions or countries to ensure truly pan-European coverage. In alignment with these goals, SAPEA is committed to supporting and increasing the participation of EMCRs from diverse geographical backgrounds in all its activities.

Table 6 provides an overview of the national and transnational young academies across Europe that are members of YASAS.

Table 6: YASAS member academies across Europe

Country in Council of Europe	Young academy — member of YASAS	Widening country?
Albania
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium	Young Academy of Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark	Young Academy of Denmark
Estonia	Estonian Young Academy of Sciences	yes
Finland	Young Academy Finland
France
Georgia
Germany	Young Academy
Greece
Hungary	Hungarian Young Academy	yes
Iceland
Ireland	Young Academy of Ireland
Israel (observer)	Israel Young Academy
Italy	National Academy of Lincei Young Academy
Latvia	Latvian Association of Young Researchers (associate member)	yes
Liechtenstein
Lithuania	Lithuanian Young Academy	yes
Luxembourg
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands	Dutch Young Academy
North Macedonia
Norway	Young Academy of Norway
Poland	Polish Young Academy	yes
Portugal
Romania	Romanian Young Academy	yes
San Marino
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain	Young Academy of Spain
Sweden	Young Academy of Sweden
Switzerland	Swiss Young Academy
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine	Young Scientists Council at the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine
United Kingdom	UK Young Academy
United Kingdom	RSE Young Academy of Scotland
Transnational	Global Young Academy
Transnational	Young Academy of Europe

Approaches and means to foster EMCR participation in SAPEA

SAPEA is dedicated to fostering the participation of EMCRs in its activities through a range of carefully considered measures:

• familiarisation and induction into SAPEA processes
• rewarding science advice activities
• strengthening collaboration, partnerships and networking
• expansion of EMCR network
• ensuring a culture of equality, diversity and inclusiveness in SAPEA

Familiarisation and induction into SAPEA processes

The first of these measures addresses the need to introduce EMCRs to SAPEA processes and the broader science advice and policy-making framework. Accordingly, the induction of scientists and scholars joining SAPEA activities will, among else, account for the fact that EMCRs may need further guidance considering their likely limited familiarity with science-for-policy advice on a European level.

It should be noted that members of young academies typically serve as members for only five years, and young academies often lack sufficient supporting staff or employ them only on a part-time basis. Accordingly, young academies have less opportunities to rely on institutional memory.

To support EMCR participation, SAPEA will develop an onboarding communications package that addresses the need for information on science-for-policy and guidelines for effective participation in SAPEA activities. This package is envisioned to include:

• information on the Scientific Advice Mechanism
• SAPEA's quality assurance guidelines
• SAPEA's strategy on diversity and inclusiveness
• details on the process from scoping to delivering science advice
• Information about SAPEA's communications activities.

This onboarding package could be supplemented with:

• brief ‘what to expect’ guidelines describing the experience of participating in an expert workshop or working group
• on-demand one-to-one exchanges with SAPEA staff to provide personalised guidance

Rewarding science advice activities

SAPEA is committed to the research assessment reform led by CoARA and assures in its quality guidelines that "evaluation of scientific excellence takes into account the principles agreed by the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment".³⁵ With regard to fostering EMCR participation, SAPEA considers it particularly important to endorse CoARA's first core commitment:

Recognise the diversity of contributions to, and careers in, research in accordance with the needs and nature of the research.³⁶

It draws attention to the following statement specifying this commitment in the CoARA agreement:

It is also important that assessment facilitates the recognition and valorisation of diverse roles and careers in research, including: data steward, software engineer and data scientist roles, technical roles, public outreach, science diplomacy, science advice and science communicator roles to name a few [emphasis added]. It is recognised that current practice is often too narrow and limiting, so the goal cannot be to replace the narrow criteria we wish to move away from with different but equally narrow criteria. Instead, the aim is to allow organisations to broaden the spectrum of what they value in research, while acknowledging that this may vary across disciplines and that each individual researcher should not be expected to contribute to all activities at once.

To facilitate the recognition of researchers' contribution to science advice, SAPEA issues certificates of participation to members of working groups, to experts contributing to expert workshops and to peer reviewers. Furthermore, it supports the recognition and valorisation of experts' contribution to science advice in its communication and outreach activities.

While recognition of EMCRs' participation in the SAM or other science advisory activities is critical, academic institutions increasingly assess their academic staff's performance through the policy or societal impact of their research. This is the case for example in the Research Excellence Framework³⁷ used in the UK academic system, to assess the quality of research in higher education institutions, and can also be observed in other European countries. SAPEA monitors the impact of the advice delivered within the SAM and is consolidating this process. SAPEA is therefore in a good position to provide the Working Group members (and especially EMCRs) with information about the policy, scientific and societal impact of the advice they have contributed, information that Working Group members can use to strengthen their academic profile.

In addition, supporting EMCR participation requires actively addressing the existing job security concerns of EMCRs, e.g. by advocating for stable employment conditions and fostering agreements with research institutions. Although this is outside the mandate of SAPEA, SAPEA welcomes strategies and initiatives to encourage institutional support for EMCRs' involvement in science advice which may, among else, include working with host institutions to develop targeted policies that support and facilitate EMCRs' participation in science-for-policy activities.

SAPEA is certainly not alone in its efforts to address the complex challenges that prevent EMCRs from contributing their scientific knowledge to evidence-informed policymaking in Europe. The recommendation adopted by the Council of the European Union in late 2024 draws attention to similar challenges and emphasizes the importance of addressing these in view of Europe's competitiveness and its social and democratic development.³⁸ The Council particularly calls for greater recognition of the full range of different roles that researchers fulfil in their role, such as teaching, research, innovation, knowledge transfer, and mentoring. It urges member states to encourage researchers to engage in these activities without fear of interference, and to adopt measures to improve researchers' working conditions, promote inclusiveness, and support professional development, gender equality, work-life balance and cross-border collaboration, addressing existing biases in career structures and recognition.

Strengthening collaboration, partnerships and networking

The engagement of young academies in SAPEA's activities benefits from a continuous dialogue and working relationship between SAPEA, YASAS, the European Network of Young Academies (ENYA) and individual young academies.

Furthermore, it benefits from closer relations, exchange of knowledge, and sharing of good practices between young academies themselves, possibly -- but not exclusively -- facilitated by YASAS. These good practices include opinion essays, charters, books, games or activities such as bringing science to schools, producing videos and other social media content. Young academies also benefit through learning from each other's experiences in the field of science-for-policy more generally, for instance in setting up working exchanges with policymakers.

Therefore, in collaboration with SAPEA, YASAS seeks to strengthen collaboration with and between young academies by:

• building a platform for exchange of knowledge and good practice for young academies on science-for-policy activities, including tailored information and a collection of resources on the YASAS website
• organising networking activities among young academies, such as webinar series with and for young academies and EMCRs
• developing and sustaining YASAS communication activities (including a website and activities in social media) and sharing science-for-policy news in the YASAS network
• using young academies as an interface to interlink and engage with EMCRs in different countries, with young academies also helping to acquaint EMCRs with science-for-policy activities

SAPEA additionally invites its consortium members to increase their engagement with EMCRs in their respective networks. Setting an example in this, Euro-CASE recently drafted recommendations for individual academies wishing to enhance their engagement with ECRs and ECPs,³⁹ while ALLEA welcomes young academies to join as members and currently counts six young academies among its membership (including an EMCR in its board) with noteworthy opportunities for substantive engagement such as co-leading projects.

In this context, and with a view to addressing the need for professional development, a structured mentorship programme and increased networking opportunities might be envisaged in the longer run that would connect EMCRs with experienced science advisors and policymakers. This could help build professional networks, increase trust, and support the development of a shared language between researchers and policymakers.

Expansion of EMCR network

While acknowledging the limited resources it has at its disposal for that purpose, YASAS will strengthen its efforts to assist in building a network of organisations that represent, or have access to, EMCRs across Europe. One instrument that can be used in this context is the "associated membership" status from which organisations interested in the work and activities of YASAS can benefit.

Over the past years, YASAS has been approached by or met with various organisations and scientific networks representing EMCRs beyond young academies. These networks usually do not qualify for full YASAS membership given their current statutes. However, they have a large membership base of excellent scientists and scholars who should be considered in expert identification for SAPEA. To ensure these EMCR networks can benefit from YASAS' outreach activities and be informed about expert group nomination calls, YASAS adopted a change in its statutes in June 2024 to define a new "associated membership" category. Organisations in this membership category:

• can benefit from YASAS' outreach activities and information on EMCR engagement in science-for-policy
• cannot directly nominate EMCRs to expert groups, but can suggest nominations to the YASAS board, who will evaluate these nominations before sending them to SAPEA. This is different from the "full YASAS members" (notably regional, national or transnational young academies) that can nominate EMCRs directly
• do not have formal voting rights in YASAS and cannot elect members to the YASAS board

The main objective of expanding YASAS to include associated organisations is to reach out to a larger number of EMCRs in Europe beyond those represented by young academies, and to offer a platform for exchange. This will help to increase the number of excellent EMCRs who can make use of the science-for-policy opportunities that SAPEA offers, in particular in countries in which no young academies exist. Furthermore, the network can be used to identify EMCRs for communications activities, including as speakers at events.

Expansion of the YASAS network also encompasses encouraging additional young academies to become members of YASAS. To this end, the 2024 update of the YASAS statutes now also allows for regional young academies to become full YASAS members. In addition, YASAS -- alongside ENYA and the Global Young Academy -- strongly support the establishment of new young academies in countries that have none so far.

With the expansion of YASAS membership to include more young academies and associate members, YASAS is carefully considering how this expansion will impact its governance, operations and SAPEA nomination procedures. Specific points relate to representation and diversity in the YASAS board, the voting rights of members, how to organize the evaluations of EMCR nominations by associate members, etc. These aspects form the topic of ongoing YASAS discussions.

Ensuring a culture of equality, diversity and inclusiveness in SAPEA

SAPEA seeks to have a fair, inclusive and supportive organisational culture, where everyone participating in its activities or coming to contact with them feels respected and experiences a commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusiveness.

The inclusion of more EMCRs serves diversity as a value in itself, but also and particularly since EMCRs provide genuine added value to SAPEA working groups and other expert roles in the science-for-policy ecosystem in general. EMCRs cannot only offer additional and new perspectives; in comparatively new and emerging fields of research, such as AI, EMCRs are often also among the most renowned top experts and spearheading research. Not least, also the element of generational justice is worth taking into consideration, with those younger age cohorts that are most and longest affected by any policy decision taken also being actively involved in informing those decisions.

This entails ensuring that EMCRs in working groups, as well as other participants, feel that their contributions are heard and valued. This requires effective policies and processes to avoid unjustified discrimination and to ensure equal treatment, commitment to diversity, and inclusive culture. With that in mind, SAPEA aims to develop a code of conduct for equality, diversity and inclusiveness, and to offer a feedback system where those participating in SAPEA activities can share their experiences and challenges, allowing SAPEA to improve its strategy and procedures.

Conclusions

By adopting this strategy, SAPEA seeks to address the limited participation of EMCRs in the provision of scientific advice, a critical issue that affects the diversity and richness of perspectives involved in evidence review and evidence-informed policymaking. The participation of EMCRs is hindered by a range of significant challenges. These include hurdles within academic systems, such as job insecurity, counterproductive evaluation criteria, and limited recognition of scientific advice in career advancement. Compounding these issues are a lack of targeted training opportunities, insufficient incentives for public engagement, and a needy interface between science and policy, which reduces opportunities for meaningful interaction with decisionmakers. Young academies, while providing valuable platforms for EMCR engagement, face their own limitations, including financial constraints, high turnover rates, and limited reach across Europe. Institutional biases and practical barriers, such as the complexities of remote participation, further exacerbate these challenges. Addressing these hurdles is critical to fostering EMCR involvement and ensuring that their valuable contributions are integrated into the provision of scientific advice, ultimately enriching evidence-based policymaking and advancing societal goals.

SAPEA aims to create an inclusive, diverse, and supportive environment that enables EMCRs to contribute their expertise and perspectives within the European Commission's Scientific Advice Mechanism. It commits to increasing and supporting the participation of EMCRs across its science- for-policy activities.

SAPEA ensures that its future working groups contain:

• at least 10% ECRs (always at least 1 person, independent of the group size)
• at least 30% MCRs (always at least 1 person, independent of the group size)

While working towards these targets, SAPEA simultaneously seeks to ensure diversity of its participants across gender, geographical origin, and disciplinary background throughout its activities.

As part of this work, SAPEA adopts approaches and measures to increase and foster EMCR participation. These include:

• familiarising EMCRs with SAPEA processes and helping them become acquainted with science advice and the policy-making process
• encouraging the recognition of EMCRs' work in providing science advice as a valuable part of their activities and careers
• fostering networking opportunities for EMCRs
• collaborating with YASAS and supporting the extension and strengthening of its network of young academies and other EMCR organisations
• ensuring a culture of equality, diversity and inclusiveness in SAPEA, facilitated by a new code of conduct and concrete measures aimed at seeking and supporting diverse EMCR participants
• establishing a feedback system where participants can share their experiences and challenges, allowing SAPEA to improve its strategy and procedures

SAPEA will implement its strategy by monitoring indicators regarding the participation of EMCRs in working groups, expert workshops, peer review roles, and as speakers or participants at events, assessed across gender, geographical, and disciplinary dimensions. It will support and track the growth and engagement of young academies, the number of EMCR nominations from various sources, and the success rates of these nominations to ensure progress towards increasing the participation of EMCRs across SAPEA's activities.

Key indicators and implementation

SAPEA will monitor the implementation of this strategy and sets as key performance indicators the number and proportion of ECRs and MCRs participating:

• in working groups
• in expert workshops
• as peer reviewers
• as speakers at events
• as participants at events

These indicators will be assessed in terms of gender, geographical coverage, and disciplinary background and used to assess to what extent the targets are met.

Further indicators comprise:

• the number of young academies joining YASAS
• the number of other organisations being associated to the YASAS network
• the number of countries represented in YASAS
• the number of ECR and MCR nominations to SAPEA working groups
• the number of ECRs and MCRs suggested or nominated by young academies through YASAS
• the number of ECRs and MCRs suggested by the wider YASAS network
• the number of ECRs and MCRs suggested or nominated by academy networks and members other than YASAS and young academies
• the success rate of suggestions and nominations based on career stage, gender, and geographical background
• the number of certificates of participation issued
• the number of webinars or workshops for exchange

For the purpose of monitoring, SAPEA will develop a tailored internal implementation plan for this Strategy across the different work packages and activities. It will evaluate the degree of implementation and the effectiveness of the proposed measure and will make proposals to further develop and approve the Strategy.

References

Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. (2022). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. Retrieved from https://coara.eu/app/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf

Council of the European Union. (2021). Council conclusions on the future governance of the European Research Area. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Retrieved from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6124-2021-INIT/en/pdf

Council of the European Union. (2023). Council conclusions on strengthening the role and impact of research and innovation in the policymaking process in the Union (approved on 8 December 2023), 16450/23. Retrieved from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16450-2023-INIT/en/pdf

Council of the European Union. (2024). Council Recommendation on attractive and sustainable careers in higher education (approved on 25 November 2024), 15477/24. Retrieved from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15477-2024-INIT/en/pdf

European Commission. (2020). A new ERA for Research and Innovation. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0628

European Commission. (2020). Communication on a New ERA for Research and Innovation. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/communication-new-era-research-innovation_en.pdf

European Commission. (2021). Reform of the research assessment system. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/reform-research-assessment-system-2021-may-06_en

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2021). She figures 2021 -- Gender in research and innovation -- Statistics and indicators. Publications Office. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/06090

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2022). Knowledge ecosystem -- Defining a European competence framework for R&I talents. Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/1117

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Almerud, M., Ricksten, M., O'Neill, G., et al. (2022). Knowledge ecosystems in the new ERA -- Using a competence-based approach for career development in academia and beyond (Núñez, L., & De Coen, A., eds.). Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/150763

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. (2019). Scientific advice to European policy in a complex world. Publications Office. Retrieved from https://scientificadvice.eu/advice/making-sense-of-science-for-policy-under-conditions-of-complexity-and-uncertainty/

European Commission, European Research Executive Agency. (2023). Information package for Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellows. Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2848/894321

European Commission, European Research Council Executive Agency, Annual report on the ERC activities and achievements in 2022, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2828/45086

ERC Work programme 2024. (2024). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2024/wp_horizon-erc-2024_en.pdf

GYA. (2019). Declaration on the Guiding Principles of Young Academies. Retrieved from https://www.diejungeakademie.de/media/pages/vernetzung/ab0ad537d6-1670257210/declaration_yas_2019-1.pdf

GYA. (2022). Blueprint for establishing a National Young Academy (NYA). Retrieved from https://globalyoungacademy.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/A_Blueprint_for_NYA_2020.pdf

OECD. (2015). Measurement of R&D personnel: Persons employed and external contributors. In Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-7-en

OECD. (2021). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2021: Times of Crisis and Opportunity. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/03df0cf4-en

SAPEA. (2019). Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty: Evidence review report (1.1). Berlin. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.26356/MASOS

SAPEA. (2020). Sustainability plan (version 1.0). Berlin. DOI 10.26356/sustainabilityplan

SAPEA (2024). Initial strategy to increase the involvement of early- and mid-career researchers in SAPEA. Berlin: SAPEA. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10926443

SAPEA. (2024). Report on challenges for early and mid-career researchers in the provision of science advice: What are they and how do we overcome them? SAPEA. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13882971

Science Europe. (2017). Practical Guide to improving Gender equality in research organisations (d/2017/13.324/2), Retrieved from https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/ubbllodu/se_gender_practical-guide.pdf

UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Science Report: The Race Against Time for Smarter Development (S. Schneegans, T. Straza, & J. Lewis, Eds.). UNESCO Publishing: Paris. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377250

Acknowledgements

SAPEA wishes to thank the young academies for the fruitful conversations that contributed to the objectives presented in this strategy, and to the following people for their valued contributions and support in the production of this strategy.

Working group

• Helen Eenmaa, Associate Professor of Governance and Legal Policy, University of Tartu, President of YASAS, SAPEA Board member (Chair)
• Georges Casimir, Permanent Secretary of the Belgian Royal Academy of Medicine (ARMB), FEAM
• Anna Fabijańska, Professor of Engineering and Technical Sciences, Lodz University of Technology, Euro-CASE
• Lara Keuck, Professor for History and Philosophy of Medicine, Bielefeld University, ALLEA Board member, ALLEA
• Ben McAlinden, Royal Academy of Engineering, Euro-CASE
• Marcel Swart, ICREA Professor of Experimental Sciences & Mathematics, University of Girona, Academia Europaea

Taskforce

• Stephany Mazon, Scientific Policy Officer, YASAS
• Rafael Carrascosa Marzo, Scientific Policy Officer, AE
• Rúben Castro, Scientific Policy Officer, FEAM
• Marie Franquin, Scientific Policy Officer, Euro-CASE
• Louise Edwards, Hub Manager, Academia Europaea Cardiff, and Scientific Policy Officer, Academia Europaea
• Hannah Macdonald, Scientific Policy Officer, FEAM
• Céline Tschirhart, Scientific Policy Officer, ALLEA
• Rudolf Hielscher, Coordinator, acatech
• Toby Wardman, Head of Communications
• Yvonne Dinter, Assistant Project Manager, acatech
• Nasim Kroegel, Project Manager, acatech

YASAS Board

The YASAS Board co-authored and supported the development of this strategy.

• Helen Eenmaa, University of Tartu, Estonian Young Academy of Sciences, President of YASAS
• Markus J. Prutsch, Heidelberg University and European Parliament, Global Young Academy
• Noel De Miranda, Leiden University, Dutch Young Academy and Young Academy of Europe
• Maciej Salaga, Medical University of Lodz, Polish Young Academy
• Sarah Verhulst, Ghent University, Young Academy of Belgium

1. SAPEA, 2023, Quality assurance guidelines and procedures on science advice for policy and society (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8329539) ↩︎
2. Ibid. ↩︎
3. ERC Work programme 2024, European Commission Decision C(2023) 3999, pp 25--26 ↩︎
4. Annex I, COM/2023/436 ↩︎
5. Report adopted by the ERA Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (2011) Towards a European Framework for Research Careers ↩︎
6. Global Young Academy (2022) Blueprint to Establish a National Young Academy ↩︎
7. Postdoctoral Fellowships ↩︎
8. Global Young Academy, 2023, National Young Academies ↩︎
9. Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), 2022, Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment ↩︎
10. SAPEA, 2023, Quality assurance guidelines and procedures on science advice for policy and society ↩︎
11. SAPEA, 2023, Quality assurance guidelines and procedures on science advice for policy and society ↩︎
12. Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, 2022, Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, pp 3--4 ↩︎
13. A brief overview of strategy's implementation is accessible at the SAM website: Diversity and Inclusiveness ↩︎
14. Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, 2019, Scientific advice to European policy in a complex world ↩︎
15. SAPEA. (2024). Report on challenges for early and mid-career researchers in the provision of science advice: What are they and how do we overcome them? SAPEA. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13882971 ↩︎
16. UNESCO, 2021, UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development ↩︎
17. Eurostat, 2022, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=R%26D_personnel&oldid=624836 ↩︎
18. The literature review consisted of searches conducted of key databases of academic literature, as well consultation of grey literature sources. ↩︎
19. A Dictionary of Media and Communication. Institutional bias ↩︎
20. SAM, 2023, How we gather evidence ↩︎
21. Ibid. ↩︎
22. As an exception, the working groups on NTAB (5 members) and cancer screening (2 members only) were comparatively small. ↩︎
23. The most recent working groups (AI in Science, SRM, and One Health) had 45 members, of which 3 were ECRs (6,67%), 21 MCRs (46,67%) and 21 LCRs (46,67%). ↩︎
24. The Revised Fields of Science and Technology (FOS) is a compulsory classification for statistics of branches of scholarly and technical fields, first published by the OECD in 2002 and revised in 2007 (see Frascati Manual). It defines six fields of science: natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical sciences, agricultural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Please note: The SAPEA WG members were assigned to the different FOS without verification by the members themselves. ↩︎
25. EASAC will rejoin SAPEA in 2025. ↩︎
26. https://www.ae-info.org/attach/Acad_Main/Activities/SAPEA/Publications/sapea-sustainability-plan.pdf ↩︎
27. SAPEA (2024). Initial strategy to increase the involvement of early- and mid-career researchers in SAPEA. Berlin: SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11058954 ↩︎
28. European Commission, 2023, Annual report on the ERC activities and achievements in 2022. ↩︎
29. COST, 2021, Definitions and Abbreviations Applicable throughout the COST Implementation Rules - Glossary ↩︎
30. Eurostat, R&D personnel, accessed November 2022 at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php?title=R%26D_personnel#Researchers ↩︎
31. Doctoral students can be classified as researchers under R&D personnel since they “perform research while working towards their doctoral thesis (ISCED level 8)”, Frascati Manual, OECD 2015, p.163. ↩︎
32. The targets apply to the aggregate level across all working groups, rather than to each individual group, to account for the relatively small size of most working groups (around 20 members) and the practical challenges of meeting detailed sub-targets within each group. ↩︎
33. Europe is defined here as countries that are members of the Council of Europe (46), and additionally Israel and Belarus. ↩︎
34. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2023-2024/wp-11-widening-participation-and-strengthening-the-european-research-area_horizon-2023-2024_en.pdf ↩︎
35. SAPEA, 2023, Quality assurance guidelines and procedures on science advice for policy and society ↩︎
36. CoARA, 2022, Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment ↩︎
37. https://2029.ref.ac.uk/about/what-is-the-ref/ ↩︎
38. Council of the European Union. (2024). Council Recommendation on attractive and sustainable careers in higher education (approved on 25 November 2024), 15477/24. Retrieved from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15477-2024-INIT/en/pdf ↩︎
39. Euro-CASE, 2020, Euro-CASE Working Group: Engagement with Early-Career Professionals, Recommendations for Euro-CASE Board ↩︎