The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) agreement is a cornerstone in the ongoing efforts to reform research evaluation. CoARA advocates for administrative evaluations of research that rely on peer review, supported by responsible metrics, as beneficial for both science and society. Its principles can be critically examined through the lens of Philip Kitcher's concept of well-ordered science in a democratic society. From Kitcher's perspective, CoARA's approach faces two significant challenges: definitions of quality and impact are determined by governments or evaluation institutions rather than emerging from broad public deliberation, and a select group of scientists is empowered to assess research based on these predefined criteria. This creates susceptibility to both the ''tyranny of expertise'' and the ''tyranny of ignorance'' that Kitcher cautions against. Achieving Kitcher's ideal would require limiting administrative evaluations to essential tasks, such as researcher recruitment and project funding, while establishing procedures grounded in principles of fairness.

翻译：推进研究评估联盟（CoARA）协议是当前研究评估改革工作的基石。CoARA主张采用基于同行评议、辅以负责任指标的行政研究评估方式，认为这对科学和社会均有益处。通过菲利普·基彻关于民主社会中"良好有序科学"概念的视角，可对CoARA的原则进行批判性审视。从基彻的观点出发，CoARA的方法面临两大挑战：质量与影响力的定义由政府或评估机构决定，而非通过广泛的公共审议形成；同时，一个被选定的科学家群体被授权依据这些预设标准来评估研究。这导致其既易陷入基彻所警示的"专家专制"，又可能遭受"无知专制"。要实现基彻的理想，需将行政评估严格限定在必要职能范围内（如研究人员聘用与项目资助），并建立基于公平原则的规范化程序。