Dear Editor-in-Chief
Academic research impact evaluation is defined the assessment of any effect due to research in academic level (1). Different factors such as individual, institutional and international collaborations can effect on research impact. In this research, two main groups’ indicators consist of citation and collaboration indicators have been used to evaluation (2). Citation indicators consist of highly cited paper (HCP), hot paper (HP), citation per item (C/I), total citation (TC), total citation without self-citation (TC without self) extracted from ISI web of Science in 2018 (3); and collaboration indicators included international (I) and national (N) collaborations (2015–2018) based on Cival reports (4). The scoring system consists of raw and normalized scores.
At first, the raw values of each index were calculated. Then based on number 100, normalized scores were estimated, i.e. the highest score in each indicator was received 100 and the others were adjusted on this number. The weighted score was calculated by multiplying weights by the normalized score (final score). Based on research team's opinion, the weights for HCP, HP, C/I, TC, TC without self, NC, IC was 2, 3, 2,1,1.5,1 and 1.5 respectively (5).
Fifty three Iranian universities of medical sciences (IUMS) in three types (I: large size universities, II: medium size universities and III: small size universities) (6) were evaluated by these indicators. Based on academic impact evaluation results, 10 IUMS were situated in type one and the majority of knowledge production (62%) were related to these IUMSs. In this type, Tehran, Shaheed Beheshti and Mashhad; in type two, Bagiyatallh, Kermanshah and Golestan; and in type three, Alborz University of Medical Sciences had the highest scores. In national level, top five universities of medical sciences were Tehran, Shahid Beheshti, Mashhad, Tabriz and Alborz universities of medical sciences. Among these UMSs, five, three and two universities were related to type one, two and three respectively. Table 1 shows the results of academic impact evaluation in the first three IUMSs in each type -in 2018.
Table 1:
Results of academic impact evaluation in the first three IUMSs in each type -in 2018
| Type of university | Name of IUMS | PA in ISI (N) | HCP(N) | HCP* | HP (N) | HP* | C /I | C /I* | TC(N) | TC* | TC without self(N) | TC without self-* | IC (%) | IC* | NC (%) | NC* | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type I | Tehran | 4357 | 28 | 200 | 8 | 266.7 | 0.99 | 130.3 | 4310 | 100 | 3464 | 150 | 19.6 | 134.25 | 61.9 | 91.8 | 1073.02 |
| Shaheed beheshti | 2951 | 22 | 157 | 9 | 300 | 0.81 | 106.6 | 2398 | 55.6 | 1790 | 77.5 | 16.8 | 115.07 | 64.4 | 95.55 | 907.49 | |
| Mashhad | 1445 | 19 | 136 | 6 | 200 | 1.52 | 200 | 2190 | 50.8 | 1876 | 81.2 | 21.9 | 150 | 45.8 | 67.95 | 885.71 | |
| Type II | Baqiyatallah | 576 | 9 | 180 | 5 | 250 | 1.6 | 173.3 | 933 | 99.3 | 859 | 150.0 | 18.9 | 90.0 | 65.4 | 82.1 | 1024.6 |
| Kermanshah | 792 | 8 | 160 | 6 | 300 | 1.2 | 127.3 | 940 | 100.0 | 745 | 130.1 | 16.3 | 77.6 | 59.6 | 74.8 | 969.8 | |
| Golestan | 268 | 6 | 120 | 5 | 250 | 1.5 | 159.4 | 399 | 42.4 | 323 | 56.4 | 21.8 | 103.8 | 58 | 72.8 | 804.8 | |
| Type III | Alborz | 283 | 9 | 200 | 6 | 300 | 1.98 | 155.9 | 559 | 100 | 492 | 150.00 | 23.6 | 150 | 72.8 | 83.20 | 1139.1 |
| Maragheh | 213 | 5 | 111 | 5 | 250 | 1.57 | 123.6 | 334 | 59.75 | 286 | 87.20 | 11.8 | 75 | 85.8 | 98.06 | 804.73 | |
| Qom | 185 | 3 | 67 | 3 | 150 | 1.32 | 103.9 | 245 | 43.83 | 209 | 63.72 | 13.1 | 83.26 | 81.5 | 93.14 | 604.56 |
The result of this study showed that publication of high cited papers and development of international collaboration in research by faculty members of universities of medical sciences could increase impact scores in academic level.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Research Experts at the Deputy of Research and Technology – Ministry of Health and Medical Education and universities of medical science for their assistance with data collection and review.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Martin BR. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3): 247–254. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Didegah F, Thelwall M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. J Informetr, 7(4): 861–873. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Persson O. (2009). Are highly cited papers more international? Scientometrics, 83(2): 397–401. [Google Scholar]
- 4. https://www.scival.com/overview/summary?uri=Institution%2F404024. Access on May 2nd
- 5.Eftekhari MB, Sobhani Z, Eltemasi M, et al. (2017). Research ranking of Iranian universities of medical sciences based on international indicators: an experience from IR of Iran. Arch Iran Med, 20(11): 673–679. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Djalalinia S, Owlia P, Forouzan AS, et al. (2012). Health research evaluation and its role on knowledge production. Iran J Public Health, 41(2): 39–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]