Comparison of Researches Assessment Criteria in America, UK, Italy, Canada, Australia, Finland, Hong Kong, Denmark and Iran

Document Type : Review Paper

Authors

1 Shahid Bahonar University of kerman, Kerman, Iran

2 Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.

Abstract

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this research is to perform a comparative study on research evaluation criteria in, UK, Italy, Canada, Australia, Finland, Hongkong, Denmark and Iran.

Methodology: The present study is a comparative-descriptive study that was conducted to compare the evaluation criteria of research in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Australia, Finland, Hong Kong, Denmark and Iran. This research is a descriptive study based on the method of data collection, library method (authoritative articles presented in this field) has been used to collect information related to literature and theoretical foundations.

Findings: The findings showed that one of the purposes of evaluating research in the United Kingdom, Italy, Finland, Hong Kong, Denmark and Iran is to measure the quality of research and increase its quality level. Another goal of evaluation in all countries except the United States is to allocate performance-based funding. In the United States, budgets are based on quantitative input, educational indicators, number of degrees obtained, or the number of low-income graduates or members of minority groups. In terms of evaluation indicators, it was concluded that Iran, USA, Australia and Denmark evaluate the researches with quantitative indicators, all mentioned countries evaluate with qualitative indivators, the United Kingdom, Australia, Finland evaluate with impact indicators and the United States and Denmark assess with scientific superiority indicators.

Conclusion: The results showed that the evaluation methods of research in different countries are based on peer review, bibliometrics and a combination of peer review and bibliometry.

Keywords

References

آراسته، حمیدرضا(1382). بنیاد ملی علوم آمریکا (NSF) رهیافت،30: 49-63.
https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/407968
مرکز پژوهش‌ها مجلس شورای اسلامی. آشنایی با شاخص‌های تحلیل استنادی در علم‌سنجی (1394). معاونت پژوهش‌های زیربنایی و امور تولیدی دفتر مطالعات ارتباطات و فناوری‌های نوین، کد موضوعی: 02 ،شماره مسلسل: 144 : 1-35
آقازاده، احمد. (1386). آموزش‌وپرورش تطبیقی. چاپ ششم، تهران: سمت.
الماسی، علی محمد (13807). آموزش‌وپرورش تطبیقی. چاپ هفتم، تهران، :رشد.
پورطالعی، فاطمه و آتشک، محمد.(1389). ارائه روشی برای بودجه‌بندی دستگاه‌های پژوهشی و فناوری بر مبنای قیمت تمام‌شده تولیدات علم و فناوری. فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری، 2(4): 53-64.
شریفی، ونداد.(1383). آشنایی با برنامه‌ها و نهادهای ارزیابی پژوهش. تازه‌های علوم شناختی، 6(3 ، 4):109-110
شریفی، ونداد (1383). آشنایی با برنامه‌ها و نهادهای ارزیابی پژوهش. تازه‌های علوم شناختی، 6( 1 ، 2): 107-10
شریفی، ونداد .(1382). ارزیابی کیفی پژوهش. تازه‌های علوم شناختی، 5( 4): 92-94.
کاشی پور، میثم و کرامت زاده، عبدالمجید (1385). معرفی فعالیت‌های آینده‌نگاری دفاعی و نظامی در ایالات‌متحده آمریکا، همایش آینده پژوهی، فن آوری و چشم انداز توسعه. تهران: دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر.
هیئت نظارت و ارزیابی فرهنگی و علمی شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی(1382). ارزیابی علم و فناوری در جمهوری اسلامی ایران. تهران:  شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی.
Black, N., et al. (1998). What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? Jama, 280(3), 231-233. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.231.Carlsson, H., et al. (2011). Research quality and the role of the university leadership, Expertgruppen för kvalitet. Stockholm :The Swedish Association of Higher Education.
 Cooper Otley, C. (1998). The 1996 research assessment exercise for business and  management. British Journal of Management, 9(2), 73-89.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00076
Council, N. R. (2000). Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields. Washington: National Academy Press. Accessed June  2020 from: from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9784/experiments-in-international-benchmarking-of-us-research-fields.
Council, N. R. (2001). Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report. Washington. Council of Chief State School Officers.
Das, A. K. (2015). Research evaluation metrics. Paris. UNESCO Publishing.
Gasparyan, A. Y. and G. D. Kitas (2012). Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer  review in biomedical journals. Croatian medical journal 53(4), 386-389. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386.
Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: funding and the structure of university researc  .Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Geuna, A. and B. R. Martin (2003). University research evaluation and funding. An  international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277-304.   https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MINE.0000005155.70870.bd
Geuna, A. and M. Piolatto (2016). Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably . Research Policy, 45(1), 260-271.
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.004
Guthrie, S., et al. (2013). Measuring research: a guide to research evaluation frameworks and       tools. RAND. Pittsburgh: Accessed June 2019 from: http://www.rand.org.
Hazelkorn, E. (2010). Assessing Europe's university-based research. Accessed June 2020 from: from: https://www.snowballmetrics.com/wp-content/uploads/assessing- europe-university-based-research_en.pdf
Hicks, D., et al. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature                520(7548): 429-431. doi: 10.1038/520429a.
Jonkers, K. and T. Zacharewicz (2016). Research performance based funding syste       A comparative assessment.  Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2791/70120, JRC101043.
Phillips, M. and K. Maes (2012). Research universities and research assessment  Position Paper for the League of European Research Universities (LERU). Accessed June 2019.  http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/publications/category/position-papers/. [Google Scholar].
Martin, B. R. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247-254.  https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635693.
Massy, W. F. (1996). Resource allocation in higher education. University of Michigan Press. Michigan, united States of America. Accessed June 2020 from: https://www.press.umich.edu/14347/resource_allocation_in_higher_education.
Osterweil, N. (2005). Medical research spending doubled over past decade. medpage Today, 20. Accessed July 2020 from:  https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/1767.
Raff, J. W. (2013). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Biology Open 2(6):533-534. doi: 10.1242/bio.20135330
Steen, J.  V. and and Eijffinger, M. (1998) ‘Evaluation Practices of Scientific Research  in the Netherlands’, Research Evaluation, 7 (2): 113–122
University Grants Committee(1999). Research Assessment Exercise :Guidance. Accessed on May 2019 from: https://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/activity/research/rae/rae99gn4.html
University Grants Committee (1996). Research Assessment Exercise: Guidance
http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/publication/prog/rae/rae96gn.htm.
Von Tunzelmann, N. and E. K. Mbula (2003). Changes in research assessment practices in other countries since 1999, re-review. Retrieved from:  http://www.rareview.ac.uk/reports/prac/changingpractices.pdf (last access: 2019-08 13).
Wojniak, J. (2018). George ZF Bereday (Zygmunt Fijałkowski) and his comparative method in educational research. SHS Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences.doi:  https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184801050
Popularization of Science
Volume 11, Issue 2 - Serial Number 19
September 2021
Pages 48-77

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics