Table 1. The relationship between SCOPE and RRA principles.

Principle/Declaration	Objectives	Relationship with SCOPE
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), 2012 Seeks improved assessment of researchers and a better scholarly communication ecosystem.	18 recommendations for different stakeholders. The key themes are to: · Eliminate journal-based metrics. · Assess research on its own merits. · Take advantage of online publication possibilities.	SCOPE shares DORA’s vision for better researcher assessment & eliminating the poor use of journal metrics, but is broader in focus, overseeing the responsible assessment of any entity.
Leiden Manifesto, 2015 Seeks more responsible use of bibliometrics in research assessment.	10 principles for the responsible use of bibliometrics in research assessment focused on: · Metrics supporting rather than supplanting expert assessment. · Mission-based performance assessment. · Accounting for variation by field in citation metrics.	SCOPE shares the Leiden Manifesto’s vision for contextualized use of bibliometrics, but is not limited to quantitative indicators, as it accounts for qualitative measures too.
The Metric Tide, 2015 Seeks to guide a broad range of research assessment approaches.	Five principles for all forms of research assessment: · Robustness · Humility · Transparency · Diversity · Reflexivity	SCOPE also has a broad focus, but does not stop at providing principles, as it also provides a pragmatic, step-by-step process for evaluating responsibly that includes characteristics like value-led beginnings and a sense-checking probe stage.
Hong Kong Principles, 2020 Seeks to reward practices that lead to researcher integrity rather than unhelpful & limited publication-based rewards.	Series of principles for assessing researchers that reward research integrity focused on: 1. Assessing responsible research practices 2. Valuing complete reporting 3. Rewarding the practice of open science 4. Acknowledging a broad range of research activities	SCOPE also offers value-based assessments, but does not prescribe what those values should be, instead letting the evaluators (together with the evaluated) generate the values that are most meaningful to them.