Ukraine has begun a major redesign of how it judges the performance of universities and research organisations, moving away from reliance on numerical rankings toward expert peer assessment in line with European guidance.
From metrics to qualitative review
The national assessment applied principles promoted by the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), prioritising qualitative expert judgement over purely quantitative indicators. Officials and analysts describe the change as an effort to align Ukrainian research evaluation with European norms developed under the European Commission’s Horizon Europe Policy Support Facility programme.
The review process covered a broad swath of the country’s academic and research landscape. In total, 483 higher education institutions and research bodies participated. Following deliberations, 246 institutions were judged to demonstrate strong performance in their scientific fields and were awarded stable institutional funding for the period 2026–2030. Those organisations together employ more than 50,000 researchers, according to the assessment’s organisers.
Digital, verified data to guide future policy
Beyond allocating multi-year funding, the evaluation produced a centralised, digitalised database of verified information on participating organisations. Ukrainian observers say that the dataset will be a resource for setting state research priorities, informing institutional policy decisions and guiding future investments in science.
Advocates argue the move addresses a longstanding problem: global university ranking systems typically disadvantage Ukrainian institutions, in part because they heavily weigh metrics that reflect broad international visibility and resources. By contrast, the CoARA-aligned approach emphasises contextualised expert review tailored to the national research ecosystem.
- 483 institutions participated in the national assessment
- 246 institutions received stable funding for 2026–2030
- Those funded institutions employ over 50,000 researchers
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Participating institutions | 483 |
| Institutions receiving stable funding | 246 |
| Researchers employed by funded institutions | More than 50,000 |
| Funding timeframe | 2026–2030 |
Context and consequences
Observers note several potential consequences. First, embedding peer review as the primary assessment mechanism aims to reward the quality and relevance of research rather than its numerical footprint. That could support fields where traditional bibliometric measures undercount impact, such as applied or locally focused research.
Second, a verified digital database should improve transparency and enable evidence-based planning. Policymakers will be able to draw on consolidated information when shaping national research priorities or allocating future funding.
Finally, adopting CoARA-aligned methods strengthens Ukraine’s scientific alignment with European policy frameworks. Officials involved in reform efforts have continued to work with recommendations prepared under the Horizon Europe support facility even as the country confronts ongoing security challenges.
Analysts say implementation will be the crucial next step. Shifting evaluation culture — recalibrating incentives, training reviewers, and ensuring consistent standards — will determine whether the new system genuinely alters institutional behaviour and research outcomes.
For now, the reform is a marked attempt to rebalance how capacity and excellence are identified and financed, favouring context-aware expert judgement over one-size-fits-all ranking metrics.
