Rethinking how research is assessed
In her research as a postdoc in the lab of Matthias Selbach, Dr. Chiara Giacomelli studies how cells decide which genetic information is turned into proteins – focusing on how messenger RNAs are selected and translated under different conditions such as health, stress, or disease. But next to her research, the Max Delbrück Center’s initiative to rethink how research is assessed has become another big focus. In the interview below, Chiara discusses why becoming actively involved in this transformation, which has been part of the Strategy 2030 process, was of particular interest to her.
What motivated you to contribute to the transformation of research assessment at the Max Delbrück Center?
Dr. Chiara Giacomelli
Chiara Giacomelli: When I stepped into the role as facilitator, I didn’t have to convince anyone that change was needed. The Max Delbrück Center had already signed DORA (the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment), a global initiative that campaigns for improving ways we assess research and researchers and joined the Coalition for Reforming Research Assessment (CoARA) – clear signals that the Max Delbrück Center was ready to rethink how research is assessed. That made a big difference. I was joining something that already mattered to the institute.
Getting involved felt natural to me. Throughout my career, I have taken on roles beyond the lab – supporting student and postdoc communities. At the Max Delbrück Center, a strategic action with the focus on “Establishing Research Assessment & A Monitoring System,” led by the Research Group Leaders Ashley Sanders and Jakob Metzger and strongly supported by Scientific Director Maike Sander, became another way to contribute. Together with them, I facilitated the initiative to better recognize the many ways researchers advance knowledge, support their communities, and create impact beyond traditional metrics like impact factors and citations. I always feel that when I am part of a community, the best way to shape it is to be actively involved.
At the same time, the experience offered something new for me: a glimpse behind the scenes of how an institute works – and how much effort real transformation requires.
Why is research assessment being reconsidered now?
Giacomelli: For me the answer lies in how research itself has evolved. The work of researchers is becoming more complex. But the way we evaluate it has not changed much.
Today, science includes much more than publishing papers, such as sharing data, collaborating across disciplines and especially engaging with society. Yet many of these contributions are still barely visible in evaluation systems. Not everyone finds it easy to rethink established approaches. Some fear that change might devalue past achievements or shift attention away from research itself. I see it differently. It’s not about saying whether research assessment in the past was wrong. It’s about recognizing that research has changed – and assessment practices should reflect that. Being part of this transformation process is the first step of many steps that hopefully lead us to a system of evaluation appropriate for our time. Quoting Maike Sander: “The steps might seem small, but a lot of small steps are actually big leaps.”
What role does the Max Delbrück Center play in this transformation?
Giacomelli: By joining CoARA, the Max Delbrück Center has taken on a pioneering role – particularly within the Helmholtz Association. We are, in a way, a blueprint. That comes with a certain tension: the freedom to try new things, and the awareness that others are watching. What stood out to me the most, however, were the people. There is a real willingness to change and a strong sense of support across the community. Even when views differ on how this transformation should look, the conversation itself is already part of the transformation.
Why are pilot projects key to making transformation work?
Giacomelli: Our team is testing new approaches step by step. A pilot is a way to try something without changing everything at once. The logic is simple – and familiar to any scientist and beyond: test, learn, adapt. Pilots create space to experiment, gather feedback, and improve before scaling up. And even when something doesn’t work, it still moves things forward. The most important question is always: what did we learn?
In the end, transformation looks less like a single breakthrough – and more like research itself: a series of small steps that, over time, lead to somewhere new.
Interview: Antje Nestler
