Volume 26, Issue 5 (8-2019)                   RJMS 2019, 26(5): 18-25 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ghalichi L, Malakouti K, Naserbakht M, Kafaee mehr M H, Pournik O. Research centers' ranking and resource management. RJMS 2019; 26 (5) :18-25
URL: http://rjms.iums.ac.ir/article-1-5599-en.html
Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , malakouti.k@iums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (2780 Views)
Background: In recent decade, there has been an increase in the number of research centers and the allocated budget and resources to research in Iran. These research centers show widely different performance and research impacts. Identifying the sources of such differences can help the research sector managers improve the effectiveness of distributed resources.
Methods: This study was performed on 28 research centers that were evaluated in Iran’s Ministry of health’s annual ranking of research centers and received their budget from research deputy of Iran University of medical sciences. The outcome of interest was the score gained in the ranking that is calculated based on number and quality of the articles, number of citations, H index of the research center, books and abstracts.
Results: In univariate analysis, tenure of the research center, its total allocated space, number of faculty members, number of non-faculty employees and total budget and number of research-based students (PhD by research, post-doctorate and clinical Scientists) were significantly correlated with the score. In regression model, number of non-faculty employees and total budget were the significant predictor variables of the score.
Conclusion: The results suggest that lack of human resources in research centers as well as budget limitations can hinder the optimum performance of research centers. Providing the necessary personnel in research centers can increase the effectiveness of the allocated research budget in research centers.
Full-Text [PDF 779 kb]   (739 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Medical

2. 1. Calabrese A, Capece G, Costa R, Di Pillo F, Giuffrida S. A ‘power law’based method to reduce size-related bias in indicators of knowledge performance: An application to university research assessment. J Inform; 2018.12(4):1263-81.
3. 2. Gao JP, Su C, Wang HY, Zhai LH, Pan YT. Research fund evaluation based on academic publication output analysis: the case of Chinese research fund evaluation. Scientometrics; 2019:1-14.
4. 3. Jones MM, Manville C, Chataway J. Learning from the UK's Research Impact Assessment Exercise: a case study of a retrospective impact assessment exercise and questions for the future. J Technol Transfer; 2017:1-25.
5. 4. Bozeman B, Youtie J. Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives. Res Policy; 2017.46(8):1387-98.
6. 5. Ancaiani A, Anfossi AF, Barbara A, Benedetto S, Blasi B, Carletti V, et al. Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation
7. exercise. Res Eval; 2015.24(3):242-55.
8. 6. Donovan C. The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Dir Eval; 2008.2008(118):47-60.
9. 7. Yazdani K, Rahimi-Movaghar A, Nedjat S, Ghalichi L, Khalili M. A 5-year scientometric analysis of research centers affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Med J Islam Repub Iran; 2015.29:206
10. 8. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Reforming science: structural reforms. Am Soc Microbiol; 2012.
11. 9. Kelly CD, Jennions MD. The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol; 2006.21(4):167-70.
12. 10. Martin-Sardesai A, Irvine H, Tooley S, Guthrie J. Organizational change in an Australian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise. Br Account Rev; 2017.49(4):399-412.
13. 11. Jaffe AB. Building programme evaluation into the design of public research‐support programmes. Oxf Rev Econ Policy; 2002.18(1):22-34.
14. 12. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, Di Costa F. When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:181013216. 2018.
15. 13. Barker K. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system. Res Eval; 2007.16(1):3-12.
16. 14. Wadman M. Study says middle sized labs do best. Nature Publishing Group; 2010.
17. 15. Galsworthy MJ, Hristovski D, Lusa L, Ernst K, Irwin R, Charlesworth K, et al. Academic output of 9 years of EU investment into health research. The Lancet; 2012.380:971-72.
18. 16. Abbott A, Cyranoski D, Jones N, Maher B, Schiermeier Q, Van Noorden R. Metrics: Do metrics matter? Nat; 2010.465(7300):860.
19. 17. Bowen A, Casadevall A. Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research. National Acad Sci; 2015.112(36):11335-40.
20. 18. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med; 2011.104(12):510-20.
21. 19. Backing Australia's ability : building our future through science and innovation. Australia. Department of Education S, Training, editors. [Canberra: Dept. of Education, Science and Training 2004]
22. 20. Casadevall A, Fang FC. Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms. Am Soc Microbiol; 2012.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Razi Journal of Medical Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb