Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40236800›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2025

A quality assessment framework for transdisciplinary research design, monitoring, and evaluation: Guidance for application.

Brian Belcher, Rachel Claus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Brian BelcherSustainability Research Effectiveness Program, College of Interdisciplinary Studies, Royal Roads University, Victoria V9B 5Y2, Canada.
Rachel ClausSustainability Research Effectiveness Program, College of Interdisciplinary Studies, Royal Roads University, Victoria V9B 5Y2, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Appropriate definitions and measures of quality are needed to guide research design and evaluation. Traditional disciplinary research approaches have well-established evaluation criteria and processes in which research quality is often narrowly defined. In contrast, emerging change-oriented transdisciplinary research (TDR) approaches integrate disciplines and include societal actors in the research process in multiple ways and contexts. Standard research assessment criteria are simply inadequate for TDR, and inappropriate use of standard criteria may disadvantage TDR proposals and impede the development of TDR. This paper presents a Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) designed for TDR, along with guidance for its application. The background outlines the origin of the framework in a systematic review of literature on the definition and assessment of transdisciplinary research quality, and the subsequent application, testing and refinement of the framework, including discussion of key revisions. It also compares the QAF with two other similar evaluation frameworks. The QAF is designed for a range of users, including: research funders and research managers assessing proposals; researchers designing, planning, and monitoring a research project; and research evaluators assessing projects

Indexed as

Peer reviewResearch designResearch evaluationResearch qualityTransdisciplinary researchTransdisciplinary Research Quality Assessment Framework

Identifiers

PMID40236800
PMCPMC11999310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.