Existing guidelines and training resources for creating Narrative CVs: a Scoping Review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Дата публикации: 06-08-2026 10:44:54

Background Narrative CVs (NCVs) are increasingly being adopted as part of responsible research assessment initiatives that seek to recognize diverse scholarly contributions beyond traditional quantitative metrics. As funding agencies, institutions, and research organizations implement NCVs, effective training is needed to support both applicants and reviewers. This scoping review aimed to characterize publicly available training and guidance resources for NCVs. Methods We conducted a scoping review following the Arksey and O’Malley framework and reported findings according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, preprint servers, and extensive grey literature were conducted from 2010 to October 2025. English and French resources providing guidance on writing and/or evaluating NCVs were eligible. Data was extracted in duplicate and summarized using descriptive statistics. Results 65 training resources met the inclusion criteria. Most originated from Canada (38.46%) and the United Kingdom (24.62%) and were produced by universities (43.08%), funders (38.46%), or government organizations (26.15%). Common formats included resource websites (27.69%), webinars (23.08%), and commentary articles (13.85%). Most resources targeted applicants (83.08%), while only 23.08% targeted reviewers. Frequently covered topics were structuring NCV sections, explaining the purpose of NCVs, and presenting non-traditional research contributions. However, reviewer guidance (13.85%) and addressing bias in narrative assessment (15.38%) were infrequently covered. Although most resources were freely accessible (92.31%), only a few had accessibility features (9.24%). Practical tools to support NCV writing and assessment were also inconsistently provided and only 21.54% reported any evaluation of effectiveness. Conclusion Current NCV training resources reflect growing international adoption of responsible research assessment. However, they largely focus on applicants, and gaps remain in reviewer-focused guidance, accessibility, practical tools, and the evaluation of training effectiveness. Developing evidence-informed and rigorously evaluated training resources will support more equitable and effective implementation of narrative CVs.

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Systematic Review

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Pushti Desai

https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2952-2033

^1,2, AlMamoune Alaoui², Anna Catharina Vieira Armond

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7121-5354

², David Moher

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206

^3,4, Kelly Cobey

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2797-1686

^2,3

Pushti Desai

https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2952-2033

^1,2, AlMamoune Alaoui², [...] Anna Catharina Vieira Armond

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7121-5354

², David Moher

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206

^3,4, Kelly Cobey

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2797-1686

^2,3

Author details Author details

¹ McMaster University Department of Biology, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
² University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
³ University of Ottawa School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
⁴ Centre for Journalology, Methodological and Implementation Research Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Pushti Desai
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

AlMamoune Alaoui
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Anna Catharina Vieira Armond
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

David Moher
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Kelly Cobey
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Corresponding author: Kelly Cobey Competing interests: KDC is co-chair of DORA (Declaration On Research Assessment). DM led the Hong Kong Principles. These roles are relevant to the topic of this study but did not influence the review. The remaining authors declare no conflicts.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2026 Desai P et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Desai P, Alaoui A, Vieira Armond AC et al. Existing guidelines and training resources for creating Narrative CVs: a Scoping Review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2026, 15:1312 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.187182.1) First published: 06 Aug 2026, 15:1312 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.187182.1) Latest published: 06 Aug 2026, 15:1312 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.187182.1)

Introduction

Academic research (er) assessment has traditionally been dominated by the use, and misuse, of quantitative indicators.¹ Metrics such as number of publications, journal impact factors, citation counts, and the h-index are commonly used as proxies for research quality and impact across disciplines and geographic regions despite how these metrics are easily “gamed”.²^,³ These indicators have been valued for their perceived objectivity and ease of collection, however, growing criticism has emerged regarding the overreliance on these measures, as they promote a narrow concept of scholarly excellence and fail to capture the breadth of contributions recommended by jurisdictional mandates and required for high-quality research ecosystems.⁴ Metric-driven assessment systems typically promote publication volume, statistically significant findings, and researcher prestige, reinforcing incentives that may undermine research quality, collaboration, openness, and reproducibility.⁵^,⁶^,⁷^,⁸ In addition, these traditional metrics can disadvantage early career researchers, individuals with non-linear or interdisciplinary career trajectories, and those whose work emphasizes mentorship, teaching, team science, community engagement, or equity-related activities.⁹ Concerns have also been raised that these approaches contribute to systemic inequities within academia and inadequately recognize the diverse range of activities necessary to advance research and societal impact.

Organizations and initiatives such as the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA),¹⁰ Leiden Manifesto,¹¹ the Hong Kong Principles for Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA),¹² and the Forum for Open Research in Latin America and the Caribbean (FOLEC-CLACSO),¹³ have played a major role in advancing international conversations on responsible research assessment and reforming the use of traditional research metrics. Collectively, these initiatives advocate for reducing overreliance on quantitative indicators, increasing transparency in evaluation practices, and recognizing a broader range of scholarly contributions and impacts. Their activities include developing guiding principles and recommendations, convening institutions and funders around shared commitments to reform, and promoting more inclusive, equitable, and context-sensitive approaches to evaluating research quality and impact. More recently, the Barcelona Declaration has further emphasized the importance of open and transparent research information systems to support fair and responsible assessment practices.¹⁴ These organizations face challenges in achieving their intended goals due to the longstanding reliance on traditional quantitative metrics in research assessment, despite growing policy recommendations promoting more responsible approaches to evaluating research. This misalignment underscores the need for practical strategies and training to support implementation of responsible research assessment principles.

These frameworks highlight how traditional metrics fail to capture core aspects of modern research such as interdisciplinary collaboration, open science, mentorship, knowledge mobilization, patient/citizen science, and broader societal impact. As a result of these advocacy efforts, paradigms for assessment are being recognised¹⁴ and some jurisdictions are taking steps to shift toward more holistic approaches to evaluating academic contributions.¹⁵^,¹⁶^,¹⁷

In response to these challenges, the Responsible Research Assessment (RRA) initiative has gained global momentum. RRA emphasizes assessing research on the basis of quality and impact, recognizing diverse contributions, and ensuring equity in research evaluation processes.¹⁸ One of the key changes emerging from the push for the RRA is the narrative CV (NCV). NCVs are a format of curriculum vitae that emphasize written, reflective descriptions of a researcher’s skills, experiences, collaborations, and achievements across a range of research activities¹⁹ Unlike traditional academic CVs that focus on a narrow band of quantitative metrics, that are not particularly evidence-based, NCVs encourage researchers to contextualize their work, reflect on its significance, and present a holistic account of their professional journey.²⁰^,²¹ This format seeks to promote more equitable and responsible research assessment processes for funding, awards, grants, hiring, and promotion decisions.⁴ Adoption of NCVs has become increasingly widespread in recent years. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) introduced the “Résumé for Researchers” in 2021, structuring narratives into four core areas: contributions to knowledge, development of others, wider societal contributions, and leadership responsibilities.²² The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) has integrated narrative sections into its grant application process,²³ and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has piloted NCV frameworks aiming to align research assessment with principles of diversity, and inclusion.²⁴

Despite growing enthusiasm for NCVs, there is significant uncertainty about how best to support both researchers and reviewers in creating and evaluating these documents.¹⁹ The narrative format introduces challenges, including concerns about subjectivity, variability in writing ability, and in potential bias by reviewers. Additionally, without clear guidance, applicants may struggle to balance self-promotion with critical reflection, while reviewers may lack standardized criteria for assessment. These challenges highlight the importance of structured training to ensure that NCVs achieve their intended goal of promoting inclusivity.

The landscape of training resources for NCVs varies considerably in format and scope. Existing materials range from recorded webinars²⁵ to slide decks²⁶ that differ in depth and accessibility. Moreover, evidence about the effectiveness of the current training is scarce, leaving critical gaps in our understanding of how to best implement NCVs on a large scale.¹⁹ While some institutions provide detailed guidance documents, others offer very minimal instructions, leading to inconsistencies in how NCVs are prepared and evaluated. There is also limited research examining whether the current resources adequately address issues of equity, bias mitigation, and accessibility for diverse researcher populations. Thus, with the increasing adoption of NCVs by major funders and institutions, it is necessary to evaluate the current state of training materials to support the effective implementation of NCVs.

The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map and analyze existing training resources related to NCVs used in research assessment. We aimed to describe publicly available materials produced by research funding organizations, academic institutions, professional associations, and other relevant interest holders to identify common elements and variations.

Methods

Study design

This scoping review followed the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley²⁷ and later refined by Levac et al.²⁸ We report the scoping review using PRISMA-ScR.²⁹ We followed their 5-step approach: 1) Identifying the research question, 2) Identifying relevant documents, 3) Document selection, 4) Extracting and charting the data, and 5) Analyzing, synthesizing, and reporting the results.

Research question

In this scoping review we aimed to answer the following question: What are the characteristics of training and guidance resources that currently exist for NCVs?

Identifying relevant documents

To identify relevant documents, we developed a search strategy in MEDLINE that was independently peer-reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Checklist.³⁰ Our search was not restricted by language of publication. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and ERIC through OVID, as well as Web of Science, from 2010 to October 20, 2025. We chose 2010 as it coincides with some of the early discussions around RRA triggered by the development of DORA (declaration conceived in 2012 and published in 2013). When we encountered a relevant document to include, we conducted a forward and backward citation analysis to identify other potential documents. For the full search strategy, see appendix 1. We also searched preprint servers (OSF, MedRxiv, arXiv, PsyArXiv) to find any other relevant documents. Finally, an intensive grey literature search was conducted to find the majority of our documents using Google and YouTube; see appendix 2 for full grey literature search. The final search terms used were “Narrative CV resources” and “Narrative CV training”.

Document screening: The main search and the grey literature search were conducted by two reviewers (PD and AA), who each individually identified and collated relevant documents.

Document selection

Inclusion and exclusion criteria: We included all English and French language documents that describe training or guidance related to writing and/or evaluating an NCV. We excluded documents that don’t describe training or guidance related to writing and or evaluating an NCV. We also excluded all documents published in languages other than English or French. All the retrieved records considered potentially relevant were imported into Airtable³¹ for data management. Screening of all documents was conducted by a single reviewer, with a second reviewer quality controlling the screening. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached.

Extracting and charting

We used AirTable³¹ to develop a purpose-built screening form to capture the characteristics of the training resources (Appendix 3). The extracted characteristics include the name of the author, organization, the country of the resource, the date of publication, the format of the training/guidance, how the training/guidance was developed, what evidence of effectiveness there is for the training/guidance, and the languages it is available in. We also mapped the content being covered in the training resources, and the format of delivery.

Two reviewers piloted the extraction form with 2 resources each to ensure consistency. Needed adjustments were made to the extraction form. The data extraction was then completed using Airtable in duplicate by two reviewers independently and conflicts were resolved by consensus discussion them. When extracting the data, we only analyzed data on the documents. All the relevant hyperlinks we found were added to as a separate document.

Analysis and synthesis

All included resources were eligible for the descriptive synthesis and were grouped according to the categories in the data extraction form. Using Excel, we conducted descriptive statistics for all quantitative items captured in our extraction form and reported them as frequencies and percentages. For multi-select variables, resources could be coded into more than one category. Frequencies were calculated for each category, and percentages were based on the total number of included resources (n = 65). As a result, percentages for these variables may not sum to 100%. Data is reported in table format for all the associated narrative summaries. During analysis, we reviewed and recoded responses initially categorized as “other” into new categories when multiple similar items were identified. This was done to improve the clarity in reporting. All the data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Protocol amendments

We made minor amendments to our initial protocol following the piloting phase. Specifically, we refined our data extraction form by adding “government” as a category for resource creators and expanded the training format classification to include infographics and articles. We also reworded the question related to funding to improve clarity and made sure it is clearly interpreted across reviewers.

The main findings of this review are outlined below. The document screening process is illustrated in a PRISMA flow diagram²⁹ shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. PRISMA Flow diagram illustrating the inclusion and exclusion criteria used during the screening of narrative CV training resources.

Note: NCV = narrative curriculum vitae.

We identified 121 records through database searches (n = 37) and grey literature searches (n = 84). After removing 32 records that were not related to narrative CV training, 89 records were screened. Four duplicate records were excluded, leaving 85 reports which were sought for retrieval. Three reports could not be retrieved (two required paid membership and one was inactive), resulting in 82 reports assessed for eligibility. Seventeen reports were excluded because they did not describe training or guidance related to completing or evaluating a narrative CV. Ultimately, 65 training resources met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review.

In total, we analyzed data from 65 training resources focused on writing and evaluating narrative CVs. Most resources were available in English (n = 52, 80.00%), while 15 (23.08%) were available in French. The year of publication was most commonly 2025 (n = 18, 27.69%), while publication year was unavailable for 18 resources (27.69%). Other resources were published in 2023 (n = 11, 16.92%), 2024 (n = 8, 12.31%), 2021 (n = 6, 9.23%), and 2022 (n = 4, 6.15%).

These resources were developed across multiple countries, with the largest proportion originating from Canada (n = 25, 38.46%), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 16, 24.62%), Luxembourg (n = 5, 7.69%), Ireland (n = 4, 6.15%), Scotland (n = 4, 6.15%), and France (n = 4, 6.15%). Additional contributions came from Switzerland (n = 3, 4.62%), the USA (n = 2, 3.08%), Spain (n = 1, 1.54%), and multinational resources (n = 1, 1.54%).

The training resources were produced by a range of organization types, most commonly universities (n = 28, 43.08%), funders (n = 25, 38.46%), and government bodies (n = 17, 26.15%). There was a smaller proportion developed by professional societies (n = 9, 13.85%), private entities (n = 5, 7.69%), and individual researchers (n = 2, 3.08%).

Training resources were also delivered in a variety of formats. The most common format was websites (n = 18, 27.69%), followed by webinars (live or recorded) (n = 15, 23.08%) and commentary/editorial/opinion articles (n = 9, 13.85%). Additional formats included slideshows (n = 6, 9.23%), infographics (n = 5, 7.69%), online modules (n = 5, 7.69%), other formats (n = 5, 7.69%), study articles (n = 4, 6.15%), template narrative CVs (n = 3, 4.62%), FAQs (n = 2, 3.08%), and in-person workshops (n = 2, 3.08%).

Most resources targeted applicants preparing narrative CVs (n = 54, 83.08%), while fewer were designed for reviewers of narrative CVs (n = 15, 23.08%). In a small number of cases, the target audience was unclear (n = 2, 3.08%) or focused on research leaders supporting researchers preparing narrative CVs (n = 1, 1.54%). All demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the narrative CV training resources (n = 65).FeaturesOptionsn%Training language *English5280 French1523.08 Year when training was published N/A1827.69 20251827.69 20231116.92 2024812.31 202169.23 202246.15 Country where training was developed Canada2538.46 United Kingdom1624.62 Luxembourg57.69 Ireland46.15 Scotland46.15 France46.15 Switzerland34.62 USA23.08 Spain11.54 Multinational11.54 What type of organization produced it *University2843.08 Funder2538.46 Government1726.15 Professional society913.85 Private entity57.69 Individual researcher(s)23.08 What is the training format *Website of resources1827.69 Webinar (live or recording)1523.08 Commentary/editorial/opinion article913.85 Slideshow69.23 Infographic57.69 Online module (complete at own pace)57.69 Other57.69 Study article46.15 Template of NCV34.62 FAQ23.08 In-person workshop23.08 Who is the target audience *Applicants preparing narrative CVs5483.08 Reviewers of narrative CVs1523.08 Unclear23.08 Research leaders in supporting researchers preparing NCVs11.54

Most training resources were not provided as part of a larger course or curriculum (n = 51, 78.46%), while a smaller percent were embedded within broader educational programs (n = 14, 21.54%). Most resources did not report the length of time required to complete them (n = 56, 86.15%), with only a small number specifying a completion time (n = 9, 13.85%). None of the identified resources provided proof of completion, such as a certificate (n = 65, 100%).

Almost all of the training resources had no barriers to online access (n = 60, 92.31%). However, some required registration prior to access (n = 4, 6.15%), and one resource had unclear barriers to access (n = 1, 1.54%). Most resources did not report accessibility features (n = 59, 90.77%), while a small percent included captions (n = 3, 4.62%) or other accessibility features (n = 3, 4.62%).

The topics most covered were how to structure and write narrative CV sections (n = 46, 70.77%), why narrative CVs are useful (n = 44, 67.69%), and explanations of what a narrative CV is (n = 41, 63.08%). Other frequently addressed topics included guidance on presenting less traditional or non-academic contributions (n = 40, 61.54%) and examples of good practice (n = 31, 47.69%). Less commonly covered topics included addressing bias in narrative assessment (n = 10, 15.38%), reviewer guidance for evaluating narrative CVs (n = 9, 13.85%), other topics (n = 8, 12.31%), and discipline-specific considerations (n = 7, 10.77%). A small number of resources discussed evaluation systems (n = 2, 3.08%) or provided useful additional resources (n = 2, 3.08%).

Training resources varied in the practical tools they provided. The largest percent did not include any practical tool (n = 30, 46.15%). Among those that did, completed example narrative CVs were the most common (n = 12, 18.46%), followed by blank narrative CV templates (n = 10, 15.38%) and other tools/resources (n = 10, 15.38%). Fewer resources included links to additional information (n = 4, 6.15%), checklists (n = 3, 4.62%), example sections (n = 2, 3.08%), or live Q&A sessions (n = 2, 3.08%).

Slightly more than half of the resources cited evidence or references to support their recommendations (n = 35, 53.85%), while the remaining resources did not include references (n = 30, 46.15%).

Most resources did not cite funding sources (n = 60, 92.31%), whereas a small number reported funding support (n = 4, 6.15%) or had unclear funding information (n = 1, 1.54%). Finally, most resources did not report any evaluations or user feedback (n = 51, 78.46%), but a smaller proportion included evaluations or feedback from users (n = 14, 21.54%). Additional characteristics of the included resources are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Detailed characteristics about the NCV training resources (n = 65).FeaturesOptionsn%Is the training provided as part of a larger course/curriculum No5178.46 Yes1421.54 Does the training report the length of time it takes to complete No5686.15 Yes913.85 Does the training provide proof of completion (i.e., certificate) No65100 Are there any barriers to access the training online No barriers6092.31 Registration46.15 Unclear11.54 Are there accessibility features? No5990.77 Others34.62 Captions34.62 What are the topics covered by the training *How to structure and write NCV sections4670.77 Why are NCVs useful4467.69 What is an NCV4163.08 Guidance on how to present less traditional or non-academic contributions4061.54 Examples of good practice3147.69 Addressing bias in narrative assessment1015.38 Reviewer guidance for evaluating Narrative CVs913.85 Others812.31 Discipline-specific considerations710.77 Evaluation system (e.g., explicit rubric)23.08 Useful additional resources23.08 Does the resource include practical tools *No3046.15 Example narrative CVs (completed)1218.46 Template narrative CVs (blank)1015.38 Others1015.38 Link to additional resources46.15 Checklist34.62 Example sections23.08 Live Q and A23.08 Does the resource cite evidence or references for its recommendations No3046.15 Yes3553.85 Does the resource cite funding No6092.31 Yes46.15 Unclear11.53 Are there any evaluations or user feedback reported No5178.46 Yes1421.54

Discussion

This scoping review mapped the characteristics of 65 training and guidance resources designed to support the preparation and evaluation of narrative CVs. To our knowledge, this is the first review to systematically examine the training landscape surrounding NCVs. Our findings suggest that while substantial efforts have been made to rapidly scale training to support the implementation of NCVs internationally, existing resources remain highly heterogeneous in format, content, and target audience, and are rarely evaluated or supported by explicit evidence of effectiveness.

The growing number of training resources identified likely reflects the increasing adoption of NCVs as part of broader responsible research assessment reforms.³² The large proportion of resources originating from Canada and the United Kingdom suggests leadership of major funders and institutions in these jurisdictions that have recently implemented NCV-based assessment processes.²²^,²⁴^,³³^,³⁴^,³⁵^,³⁶ Universities, funders, and government organizations were the primary producers of training materials, indicating that implementation of NCV training is currently being distributed across multiple sectors rather than coordinated through a single approach. There are also few opportunities for researchers to receive formal recognition for completing training; with most training being offered on websites with no certificate options. Although most resources (92.31%) were freely accessible, four required registrations before access ( Table 2). These barriers included paid registration, access restricted to institutional or university accounts, or registration for a live session where only presentation slides, not a recording, were subsequently made available. Such barriers may limit the accessibility of training for researchers outside participating institutions or without the financial resources to enroll.

Three-quarters of identified resources targeted researchers preparing NCVs, whereas only a small proportion were intended for peer reviewers. Given that concerns about subjectivity and the use of “buzzwords” and self-promotion are common criticisms of NCVs,³⁷^,³⁸ the limited attention devoted to these topics may represent an important gap in current development and evaluation of training. Without adequate reviewer support, there is a risk that NCVs simply replace one set of assessment challenges with another.

Nearly half of all resources did not cite any supporting evidence for their recommendations, and fewer than one-quarter reported any form of evaluation or user feedback. As NCVs continue to be adopted by funders and institutions, there is an urgent need to generate evidence regarding which training approaches are most effective, for whom, and under what circumstances. Future research should evaluate how NCVs and traditional CVs compare on fairness and equity measures, as well as whether researchers are satisfied with NCVs. Indeed, the heterogeneity in NCV evaluation presents an opportunity to identify and standardizeevidence based assessment practices. While organizations like funders and research performing organizations may differ in their strategic objectives, there is likely a core set of items that are common to many.³⁹

Most resources were freely available online and did not require registration, which supports broad dissemination and uptake. However, accessibility features such as captions and accommodations for diverse users were uncommon. Given that NCVs are frequently promoted as tools to support equity and inclusion in research assessment, greater attention should be paid to ensuring that training materials themselves are accessible and inclusive.

This review has several strengths. We employed a comprehensive and peer-reviewed search strategy that included both academic and extensive grey literature sources, which was essential given that many NCV training resources are not published in traditional scholarly outlets. We followed established scoping review methodology and prospectively registered our protocol, enhancing the transparency and reproducibility of our work. In addition, data extraction was conducted and then verified by a second person, reducing the likelihood of errors and subjective interpretation.

Several limitations should also be acknowledged. First, despite extensive searching, it is possible that some resources were missed, particularly those hosted on internal institutional websites or distributed through closed training platforms. Second, we restricted inclusion to English and French language materials, which may have resulted in the omission of relevant resources developed in other languages and jurisdictions. Third, as a scoping review, our objective was to map and describe existing resources rather than assess their quality or effectiveness, we therefore cannot draw conclusions about which training approaches are most effective or used. Finally, because many resources lacked detailed reporting regarding their development processes or evaluations, our ability to assess some of the items on our extraction form was limited by lack of information. It is possible we underestimated information if it was not documented clearly.

As adoption of NCVs continues to expand, there is a need for more evidence-informed, accessible, and rigorously evaluated training resources to support both applicants and reviewers and to maximize the potential of NCVs to contribute to fairer and more responsible research assessment practices.

Ethical considerations

Ethics approval was not required because only publicly available materials were analysed.

Data availability statement

Open Science Framework. Existing Guidelines and Training Resources for Creating Narrative CVs: A Scoping Review. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GNC5E.⁴⁰

This project contains the following underlying data:

• Extended data. (OVID and grey literature search strategies (Appendices 1 and 2), the data extraction form (Appendix 3) and complete database of all the included documents (Appendix 4)).
• Included Documents. (PDFs of all 65 narrative CV resources included in the scoping review).
• NCV Data Tables - Clean. (Extracted data for all included resource used in analyses).
• PRISMA Checklist. (Completed PRISMA-ScR reporting checklist indicating where each reporting item is addressed in the manuscript).
• PRISMA Flow diagram. (Flow diagram illustrating the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of records throughout the review process).
• Protocol for Existing guidelines and training resources on Narrative CVs. (The study protocol describing the objectives, eligibility criteria, search strategy, screening process, data extraction methods, and planned analyses).

Data is available under the terms of the CC-By Attribution 4.0 International.

The study protocol was posted on OSF before starting.

Reporting guidelines

Reporting was guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The completed PRISMA checklist is available in the Open Science Framework repository.

References

1. Ioannidis JPA, Maniadis Z: Quantitative Research Assessment: Using Metrics against Gamed Metrics. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2024; 19(1): 39–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Fire M, Guestrin C: Over-Optimization of Academic Publishing Metrics: Observing Goodhart’s Law in Action. GigaScience. 2019; 8: giz053. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Van Noorden R , Chawla DS: Hundreds of Extreme Self-Citing Scientists Revealed in New Database. Nature. 2019; 572(7771): 578–579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, et al.: The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity. PLoS Biol. 2020; 18(7): e3000737. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Easterbrook PJ, Gopalan R, Berlin JA, et al.: Publication Bias in Clinical Research. Lancet. 1991; 337(8746): 867–872. Publisher Full Text
6. West RE, Rich PJ: Rigor, Impact and Prestige: A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Scholarly Publications. Innov. High. Educ. 2012; 37(5): 359–371. Publisher Full Text
7. Szucs D, Ioannidis JPA: Correction: Empirical Assessment of Published Effect Sizes and Power in the Recent Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology Literature. PLoS Biol. 2021; 19(3): e3001151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Munafò MR, Stothart G, Flint J: Bias in Genetic Association Studies and Impact Factor. Mol. Psychiatry. 2009; 14(2): 119–120. Publisher Full Text
9. Pietilä M, Kekäle J, Rintamäki K: Broadening the Conception of ‘What Counts’ – Example of a Narrative CV in a University Alliance. Paper presented at 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators STI 2023). April 20, 2023. Publisher Full Text
10. About DORA: DORA.2026. n.d. Accessed March 19. Reference Source
11. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, et al.: Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. Nature. 2015; 520(7548): 429–431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. CoARA – Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment: 2026. n.d. Accessed March 19. Reference Source
13. FOLEC: CLACSO.2026. n.d. Accessed March 19. Reference Source
14. Europe S: SE Signes DORA. Science Europe. 2025. Accessed July 24. Reference Source
15. UKRN: Is a Founding Signatory of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information|UK Reproducibility Network.n.d. Accessed July 24, 2026. Reference Source
16. The FNR Signs the DORA Declaration. FNR; December 12, 2018. Reference Source
17. Government of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)|Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; 2026. Accessed July 24. Reference Source
18. Allen L, Barbour V, Cobey K, et al.: A Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Performing Organizations.2025; 13. Publisher Full Text
19. Meadmore K, Recio-Saucedo A, Blatch-Jones A, et al.: Exploring the Use of Narrative CVs in the NIHR: A Mixed Method Qualitative Study. NIHR Open Res. 2022; 2(38): 38. Publisher Full Text
20. Catterall J: Narrative CVs: How Do They Change Evaluation Practices in Peer Review for Grant Funding? DORA. 2024. Reference Source
21. Strinzel M, Brown J, Kaltenbrunner W, et al.: Ten Ways to Improve Academic CVs for Fairer Research Assessment. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2021; 8(1): 251. Publisher Full Text
22. UK Research and Innovation: n.d. Reference Source
23. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF): Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).2025. Accessed July 24. Reference Source
24. Government of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Update on CIHR’s Transition to the Tri-Agency CV: Message from the Vice-President, Research Programs - CIHR.March 19, 2026. Reference Source
25. Developing a Narrative CV: Guidance for Researchers.2025. Accessed July 12. Reference Source
26. Popoola I: Baseline competencies for writing a compelling narrative CV. University of Alberta; 2025; 3. . Reference Source
27. Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text
28. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK: Scoping Studies: Advancing the Methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010; 5(1): 69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation|Annals of Internal Medicine.2025. Accessed July 24. Publisher Full Text
30. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al.: PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016; 75: 40–46. Publisher Full Text
31. Airtable: Airtable: Build Enterprise-Ready AI Workflows, Apps & Agents.2025. Accessed July 12. Reference Source
32. Albert, Antonino M, Qayyum A, et al.: What Goes in a Funder’s Narrative CV?: A Scoping Review. Preprint, F1000Research. December 1, 2025; 14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
33. Medical Research Foundation: Résumé for Researchers CV.2025. Accessed July 24. Reference Source
34. Narrative CVs. Alzheimer’s Research UK. n.d. Accessed July 24, 2026. Reference Source
35. Résumé for Researchers|Royal Society.2026. Accessed July 24. Research Source
36. Narrative CVs in Your Application|Cancer Research UK.2026. Accessed July 24. Reference Source
37. Bonn NA, Morris JP, Sapcariu S, et al.: Are Narrative CVs Contributing towards Shifting Research Culture? Workshop Report from the 2023 Recognition and Rewards Festival. Preprint, F1000Research. June 19, 2025. Publisher Full Text
38. Oliver R: Narrative CVs Risk Worsening the Biases They Aim to Redress. Research Professional News. January 29, 2025. Reference Source
39. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, et al.: Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science. 2015; 348(6242): 1422–1425. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
40. Desai P, Alaoui AM, Vieira Armond AC, et al.: Existing Guidelines and Training Resources for Creating Narrative CVs: A Scoping Review. [dataset]. Open Science Framework. 2026. Publisher Full Text

Competing interests

KDC is co-chair of DORA (Declaration On Research Assessment). DM led the Hong Kong Principles. These roles are relevant to the topic of this study but did not influence the review. The remaining authors declare no conflicts.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

© 2026 Desai P et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2026

Comment

Схожие новости

#	Наименование новости	Тональность	Информативность	Дата публикации
1	Systematic Review of Assessment in General Chemistry: Trends, Digital Innovations, and Integration of Theory-Laboratory Course [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	0	6.34	08-08-2026
2	Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]	0	6.79	14-07-2026
3	Mapping the range and nature of clinical academic training opportunities for nurses – a scoping review	0	5	14-07-2026
4	Research Visibility in Physical Therapy: A Narrative Analysis of Academic and Clinical Contributions [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]	0	7.52	10-07-2026
5	Gender and Narrative Writing in Elementary Schools: A Qualitative Study Supporting Inclusive Education [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]	0	7	02-05-2026
6	Equity impacts of active travel interventions: A systematic evidence map of the extent and nature of evaluation research [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	0	5.4	05-08-2026
7	Beyond Classrooms: Community-Based Learning for Personal, Social, and Vocational Empowerment [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]	6	8	09-06-2026
8	The costs and benefits of research grant funding peer review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]	0	7.05	24-06-2026
9	Tell Your Story: Strengthening Scientific Engagement and Welfare Leadership among Animal Technologists [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]	0	8.63	06-07-2026
10	Ethnic reporting and representation in UK COVID-19 consenting observational studies; a systematic review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	0	4.94	04-08-2026

Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 6.46. Источник: f1000research.com.

Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Existing guidelines and training resources for creating Narrative CVs: a Scoping Review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Дата публикации: 06-08-2026 10:44:54

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Схожие новости