The HRB surveyed applicants, co-lead applicants and mentors, where applicable, and reviewers (peer and panel) from two funding schemes, targeting two different career stages:

1. Established investigators as co-leads of doctoral programmes and

2. Postdoctoral researchers transitioning towards research independence.

It is important to note that the users experience was assessed on a previous version of the HRB narrative like CV. The current version referred as Career Track CV is in use since 2022 (and took on learning from the round 1 surveys). The key findings are summarised below.

We had a high response rate of 73% among lead (and co-lead) applicants and 52% among mentors.

• 77% of all respondents said that the HRB narrative-based CV gives a better outline of the applicant’s research experience for the purposes of review, compared with a standard CV with predominantly quantitative metrics. 86% of mid-career respondents were positive about the HRB narrative based CV compared to 72% of established researchers.
• Most respondents said that the use of the HRB narrative CV is appropriate in research career schemes with 69% rating it as good/very good, and 15% rating it as excellent. Only 16% of respondents rated it as average/poor. A higher percent (31%) of mid-career researchers thought this was excellent compared to 5% among more established investigators.
• 74% of respondents rated their experience in completing the CV as good or very good with 11% rating their experience as excellent and 14% as poor/average. More established investigators rated this question as good, followed by very good (51% and 25% respectively), while the majority of mid-career researchers showed a broadly similar rating between good and very good (37 and 34% respectively). No difference was noted in the excellence rating based on r career stage, with 11% of mid-career researchers rating it as excellent and 12% of more established researchers.
• Overall, 82% of respondents (comprising 89% of mid-career researchers and 79% of established researchers) said they would like us to consider using a similar narrative-like CV in other HRB schemes, such as the investigator-led schemes.

Other key points of feedback included:

• While the majority of respondents added positive comments about the use of such a CV, many noted that it might be too short, and they might need less restrictions on word count.
• Many respondents expressed a need to receive training and have CV examples for guidance.
• There was a suggestion to produce some case studies from review panels to understand what they think about the HRB narrative-like CV and how they use it.
• Respondents welcomed the statement in the CV that not all individuals need to demonstrate contributions in all sections of the CV.
• Some highlighted the challenge or the mismatch between what is requested in these types of CV and the more traditional metrics still used in institutions, such as Journal Impact Factors, when evaluating suitability for promotion or other career development opportunities. This can have the negative effect of discouraging researchers from disseminating their work in different formats such as research reports or public events, as these are not ‘counted’ by their institutions.
• Some respondents suggested that it would be useful to know the extent to which the content and emphasis in the narrative CV impacts on the scoring by peer reviewers and panel members e.g., it is it more the breadth of impacts included or the reference to some key deeply influential impacts that scores better? There is a danger on the one hand that this might encourage a box ticking approach to ‘hit’ research impact expectations as defined in the narrative. But, on the other hand, the narrative-like CV has the advantage of focusing on the impacts rather than publications only, which is aligned with the DORA principles. 
• Respondents noted that defining societal benefits and attention to measuring policy input would be also helpful.

We had a high response rate of 73% among lead (and co-lead) applicants and 52% among mentors.

• 77% of all respondents said that the HRB narrative-based CV gives a better outline of the applicant’s research experience for the purposes of review, compared with a standard CV with predominantly quantitative metrics. 86% of mid-career respondents were positive about the HRB narrative based CV compared to 72% of established researchers.
• Most respondents said that the use of the HRB narrative CV is appropriate in research career schemes with 69% rating it as good/very good, and 15% rating it as excellent. Only 16% of respondents rated it as average/poor. A higher percent (31%) of mid-career researchers thought this was excellent compared to 5% among more established investigators.
• 74% of respondents rated their experience in completing the CV as good or very good with 11% rating their experience as excellent and 14% as poor/average. More established investigators rated this question as good, followed by very good (51% and 25% respectively), while the majority of mid-career researchers showed a broadly similar rating between good and very good (37 and 34% respectively). No difference was noted in the excellence rating based on r career stage, with 11% of mid-career researchers rating it as excellent and 12% of more established researchers.
• Overall, 82% of respondents (comprising 89% of mid-career researchers and 79% of established researchers) said they would like us to consider using a similar narrative-like CV in other HRB schemes, such as the investigator-led schemes.

Other key points of feedback included:

• While the majority of respondents added positive comments about the use of such a CV, many noted that it might be too short, and they might need less restrictions on word count.
• Many respondents expressed a need to receive training and have CV examples for guidance.
• There was a suggestion to produce some case studies from review panels to understand what they think about the HRB narrative-like CV and how they use it.
• Respondents welcomed the statement in the CV that not all individuals need to demonstrate contributions in all sections of the CV.
• Some highlighted the challenge or the mismatch between what is requested in these types of CV and the more traditional metrics still used in institutions, such as Journal Impact Factors, when evaluating suitability for promotion or other career development opportunities. This can have the negative effect of discouraging researchers from disseminating their work in different formats such as research reports or public events, as these are not ‘counted’ by their institutions.
• Some respondents suggested that it would be useful to know the extent to which the content and emphasis in the narrative CV impacts on the scoring by peer reviewers and panel members e.g., it is it more the breadth of impacts included or the reference to some key deeply influential impacts that scores better? There is a danger on the one hand that this might encourage a box ticking approach to ‘hit’ research impact expectations as defined in the narrative. But, on the other hand, the narrative-like CV has the advantage of focusing on the impacts rather than publications only, which is aligned with the DORA principles. 
• Respondents noted that defining societal benefits and attention to measuring policy input would be also helpful.

The response rate among reviewers, which included peer-reviewers and panel members, was 74%.

• 17% of reviewers are still not familiar with the DORA declaration and its principles, 40% said they are familiar and 43% said they are somewhat familiar, but they are not sure how to apply the principles in funding decisions.
• 69% of reviewers responded that the information requested in the CV format comprehensively highlighted the value, quality and potential impact of the researchers' outputs (in terms of impact on the research field and/or on policy and practice) and their suitability to their role in this funding scheme while 31% reported that that the CV did this in a somewhat comprehensive manner.
• 80% of reviewers reported that they took the different types of outputs into consideration in addition to peer-reviewed articles.
• 77% of reviewers rated the assessment of the CV as good or very good with the remainder rating it as poor (5.7%), average (11%) or excellent (5.7%).
• 77% of reviewers rated the HRB narrative-based CV as more effective than more traditional CVs that are based mostly or solely on quantitative metrics.
• 65% of reviewers rated the flow of the questions in the CV as being good or very good and 25% thought it was excellent. Only 8.5% of respondents thought it was average.
• 69% of reviewers said the information provided in the guidance notes and the assessment guidelines on the DORA declaration and how the HRB is implementing the principles, were very helpful while 31% thought they were somewhat useful.

Other key comments from reviewers included:

• The narrative CV format poses a number of challenges including (1) wide range of writing styles; (2) larger amount of data/information to analyse and assess; (3) subjectivity of these CVs.  A potential solution proposed was ensuring a good combination/balance between lists and narrative (HRB approach) and a clarity of what to look for.
• Notwithstanding most reviewers acknowledged that the narrative like CV may provide a more holistic view of a researcher’s track record, some also stated that they still primarily used the list of peer-reviewed publications to assess the track record and other types of research outputs weighted less. 
• Generally, reviewers reported that the amount of information requested from co-applicants should be more succinct and they would not need the same CV structure as the lead applicant.
• For schemes which are open to a broad range of disciplines there may be extra challenges as expectations of individuals from different disciplines can be quite different. For example, a laboratory based biomedical scientist will have a different portfolio to an experienced physiotherapist - so there is a degree of subjectivity in this assessment.
• The applicant’s own assessment of their career to date provides additional insight to reviewers, which was particularly useful if they did not know the research field well. However, it is quite subjective, and in some instances, applicants were not able to recognise and/or explain well their impact.

Based on all of the above feedback, the HRB made following decisions or changes:

1. The narrative like CV, now named the HRB Career Track CV, is better aligned to the Royal Society Resume for Researchers and incorporates several changes.
2. This CV is used for Lead Applicants and Mentors, where relevant, in applications for HRB research career schemes.
3. The CV for Co-applicants is now shorter, more aligned to most of the HRB funding schemes which include information that is critical for the reviewers to assess their expertise and their role in a team (e.g. researcher vs PPI contributor vs knowledge user) in the application.
4. The guidance for applicants has been improved highlighting the purpose of the Career Track CV, how it will be assessed, and the flexibility of the different modules depending on career stage.
5. A new webpage has been created on the HRB website, which also has a CV template to be downloaded.
6. The guidance for reviewers has been improved highlighting the purpose of the Career Track CV, how to assess the information provided to support and inform decision making appropriately, and the importance of complementarity between qualitative and quantitative metrics. The HRB also highlight the importance of the improving research assessment during panel briefing and during meetings.
7. The HRB made a decision not to provide exemplar CVs to guide applicants on the basis that the CV prepared by each individual should be unique to the individual completing it and to the funding opportunity they are applying to or are supporting (mentors). We will keep this under review.

Other HRB actions:

• The HRB continues to assess the users' experience longitudinally in our research career schemes.  A second round of surveys is underway and should be completed by the end of 2024.
• By working with other national/international funders through sharing survey questions and survey results, the HRB can glean more and better insights from larger numbers and more subgroups that would otherwise be available.
• The HRB will continue to engage with national/international funders in various for a to examine the benefits and challenges of introducing a narrative-like CV for the assessment of teams, e.g. leadership teams, networks.
• The HRB is committed to constantly reviewing the effect of narrative CVs on workload both for applicants and reviewers, including assessing potential duplication in information provided. We are also keen to listen to the experience of funders who have or plan to introduce narrative CVs for project, programme or infrastructural grants. 
• The HRB is liaising with other funders via the Joint Funders Group to examine the issue of guidance and training resources which could be tailored to research support offices, applicants and reviewers.

Overall, 82% of respondents (comprising 89% of mid-career researchers and 79% of established researchers) said they would like us to consider using a similar narrative-like CV in other HRB schemes, such as the investigator-led schemes.