ArticleGerman medical science : GMS e-journal2014
Evaluation of medical research performance--position paper of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF).
Article in German medical science : GMS e-journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives for Cancer Care and Research in Central and Eastern Europe.Oncology research and treatment · 2023Review
- Requirements for Becoming an Adjunct Professor in Medicine: A Comparative Analysis of the Regulations of German Medical Faculties.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- [On the quality of bibliometric analyses].Der Anaesthesist · 2021Article
- Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2020Article
- Pediatric Surgical Research Output in Germany in the Last 30 Years - An Assessment and International Comparison of Three Dedicated Paediatric Surgical Journals.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- [Publications by university Departments of Anaesthesiology from Germany, Austria and Switzerland in 2011-2015 : Scientific publications by university hospitals in D‑A-CH].Der Anaesthesist · 2019Article
- National survey of evaluation practices and performance-guided resource allocation at German medical schools.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2019Article
- [Start-up grants for young scientists in German medical universities : Can the clinical scientist be saved?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016Article
- Article
- A Metrics Ontology. An intellectual infrastructure for defining, managing, and applying metrics.Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the fourteenth international ISKO conference 27-29 September 2016 Ri... · 2016Article
- Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: which factors impact impact factors?BMC medical education · 2016Article
- [Postdoctoral lecturer thesis in medicine: academic competence or career booster?].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016Article
- Development and use of a research productivity assessment tool for clinicians in low-resource settings in the Pacific Islands: a Delphi study.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- [Reading behavior and preferences regarding subscriptions to scientific journals : Results of a survey of members of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2015Article
- The lebanese society of cardiology: plans and perspectives, navigating against contrary winds and progressing against all odds.Health services insights · 2014Article
- An Evaluation Index System for Research Efficiency of Research-Oriented Hospitals in China.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe evaluation of medical research performance is a key prerequisite for the systematic advancement of medical faculties, research foci, academic departments, and individual scientists' careers. However, it is often based on vaguely defined aims and questionable methods and can thereby lead to unwanted regulatory effects. The current paper aims at defining the position of German academic medicine toward the aims, methods, and consequences of its evaluation.
methodsDuring the Berlin Forum of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) held on 18 October 2013, international experts presented data on methods for evaluating medical research performance. Subsequent discussions among representatives of relevant scientific organizations and within three ad-hoc writing groups led to a first draft of this article. Further discussions within the AWMF Committee for Evaluation of Performance in Research and Teaching and the AWMF Executive Board resulted in the final consented version presented here.
resultsThe AWMF recommends modifications to the current system of evaluating medical research performance. Evaluations should follow clearly defined and communicated aims and consist of both summative and formative components. Informed peer reviews are valuable but feasible in longer time intervals only. They can be complemented by objective indicators. However, the Journal Impact Factor is not an appropriate measure for evaluating individual publications or their authors. The scientific "impact" rather requires multidimensional evaluation. Indicators of potential relevance in this context may include, e.g., normalized citation rates of scientific publications, other forms of reception by the scientific community and the public, and activities in scientific organizations, research synthesis and science communication. In addition, differentiated recommendations are made for evaluating the acquisition of third-party funds and the promotion of junior scientists.
conclusionsWith the explicit recommendations presented in the current position paper, the AWMF suggests enhancements to the practice of evaluating medical research performance by faculties, ministries and research funding organizations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.