In the field of research evaluation, we find several pain points that have triggered the necessary changes that have taken place across Europe, such as the inappropriate or almost exclusive use of the impact factor and the h-index in the evaluation of research, based on quantitative rather than qualitative criteria; the tendency to count the number of papers, as an essential element to evaluate a researcher; existence of comparative rankings and metrics between institutions and researchers; research at the service of the researcher himself, i.e. it is not disseminated to society openly and transparently; research data that is not shared or accessible to analyse the results obtained; Since evaluation creates behaviours, evaluation design should encourage desirable behaviours. The evaluation must leave its "comfort zone". It should not be evaluated in a certain way because it is easy to apply, it is necessary to find a way to use an evaluation aimed at promoting good practices in research and the generation of quality knowledge.

This paper analyses the European context that sets the change in motion, with the different declarations such as Leiden, DORA, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the COARA coalition towards the new change of evaluation in research. Likewise, the guidelines of the national Open Science strategy are argued, in which some gaps are found in Open Access, after the recommendation of UNESCO (2021).

The methodology to be followed is qualitative and consists of analysing the theoretical context of this reform to classify the different problems that we still face in research and propose aspects for improvement in the university and research centres.

Keywords: COARA, research, European context, declarations, open science.