Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37277824›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2023

Exploring the merits of research performance measures that comply with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and strategies to overcome barriers of adoption: qualitative interviews with administrators and researchers.

Himani Boury, Mathieu Albert, Robert H C Chen, James C L Chow, Ralph DaCosta, Michael M Hoffman, Behrang Keshavarz, Pia Kontos, Mary Pat McAndrews, Stephanie Protze and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Himani BouryToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Mathieu AlbertThe Institute for Education Research, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Robert H C ChenResearch Solutions and Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
James C L ChowTechna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Ralph DaCostaPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Michael M HoffmanPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Behrang KeshavarzKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Pia KontosKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Mary Pat McAndrewsKrembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Stephanie ProtzeMcEwen Stem Cell Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Anna R GagliardiToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. anna.gagliardi@uhn.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5721-809X
University Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn prior research, we identified and prioritized ten measures to assess research performance that comply with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, a principle adopted worldwide that discourages metrics-based assessment. Given the shift away from assessment based on Journal Impact Factor, we explored potential barriers to implementing and adopting the prioritized measures.

methodsWe identified administrators and researchers across six research institutes, conducted telephone interviews with consenting participants, and used qualitative description and inductive content analysis to derive themes.

resultsWe interviewed 18 participants: 6 administrators (research institute business managers and directors) and 12 researchers (7 on appointment committees) who varied by career stage (2 early, 5 mid, 5 late). Participants appreciated that the measures were similar to those currently in use, comprehensive, relevant across disciplines, and generated using a rigorous process. They also said the reporting template was easy to understand and use. In contrast, a few administrators thought the measures were not relevant across disciplines. A few participants said it would be time-consuming and difficult to prepare narratives when reporting the measures, and several thought that it would be difficult to objectively evaluate researchers from a different discipline without considerable effort to read their work. Strategies viewed as necessary to overcome barriers and support implementation of the measures included high-level endorsement of the measures, an official launch accompanied by a multi-pronged communication strategy, training for both researchers and evaluators, administrative support or automated reporting for researchers, guidance for evaluators, and sharing of approaches across research institutes.

conclusionsWhile participants identified many strengths of the measures, they also identified a few limitations and offered corresponding strategies to address the barriers that we will apply at our organization. Ongoing work is needed to develop a framework to help evaluators translate the measures into an overall assessment. Given little prior research that identified research assessment measures and strategies to support adoption of those measures, this research may be of interest to other organizations that assess the quality and impact of research.

Indexed as

Academic reviewAcceptanceBarriersCriteriaImplementationIndicatorsPerformance appraisalQualitative interviewsResearch personnelSan Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

Identifiers

PMID37277824
PMCPMC10243029
OpenAlexW4379469623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.