Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38813348›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2023

The SCOPE framework - implementing ideals of responsible research assessment.

Laura Himanen, Erica Conte, Marianne Gauffriau, Tanja Strøm, Baron Wolf, Elizabeth Gadd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Laura HimanenFaculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Kanslerinrinne 1, FI-33014, Tampere, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8289-9766
Erica ConteUnity Health Toronto, 30 Bond St, Toronto, Ontario, L1Z 1P3, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2699-9591
Marianne GauffriauIT University of Copenhagen, Rued Langgaards vej 7, Copenhagen, DK-2300, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7639-7719
Tanja StrømOslo Metropolitan University, (OsloMet), Pilestredet 46, Oslo, 0167, Norway.
Baron WolfUniversity of Kentucky, 311 Main Building, Lexington, Kentucky, 40502, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9918-9303
Elizabeth GaddLoughborough University, Epinal Way, Loughborough, England, LE11 3TU, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4509-7785

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Research and researchers are heavily evaluated, and over the past decade it has become widely acknowledged that the consequences of evaluating the research enterprise and particularly individual researchers are considerable. This has resulted in the publishing of several guidelines and principles to support moving towards more responsible research assessment (RRA). To ensure that research evaluation is meaningful, responsible, and effective the International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) Research Evaluation Group created the SCOPE framework enabling evaluators to deliver on existing principles of RRA. SCOPE bridges the gap between principles and their implementation by providing a structured five-stage framework by which evaluations can be designed and implemented, as well as evaluated. Methods: SCOPE is a step-by-step process designed to help plan, design, and conduct research evaluations as well as check effectiveness of existing evaluations. In this article, four case studies are presented to show how SCOPE has been used in practice to provide value-based research evaluation. Results: This article situates SCOPE within the international work towards more meaningful and robust research evaluation practices and shows through the four case studies how it can be used by different organisations to develop evaluations at different levels of granularity and in different settings. Conclusions: The article demonstrates that the SCOPE framework is rooted firmly in the existing literature. In addition, it is argued that it does not simply translate existing principles of RRA into practice, but provides additional considerations not always addressed in existing RRA principles and practices thus playing a specific role in the delivery of RRA. Furthermore, the use cases show the value of SCOPE across a range of settings, including different institutional types, sizes, and missions.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumansResearchevaluation frameworkResearch evaluationresponsible research assessmentSCOPE

Identifiers

PMID38813348
PMCPMC11134161

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.