A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Designing a Framework for Evaluating the Scientific Productions. | LitMetric

Background: Evaluation of scientific productions to attract, maintain, and promote faculty members is one of the necessary processes of academic societies and is of interest to policy makers in the field of higher education. This study aimed to provide a uniform and native framework for evaluating the scientific productions of researchers in the fields of science and health in Iran.

Methods: The current research used the single-stage fuzzy Delphi technique and AHP. The research community comprised 50 top scientific experts and researchers from the country. The data collection tool was a researcher-made checklist obtained from the review of literature and laws and regulations of Iranian universities and research institutions.

Results: Data analysis led to the identification, prioritization and weighting of eleven criteria and 124 items for the intended framework, which are, respectively, author's authority (scientific leaders) (15 items); database used in calculating the index (3 items); Innovation and technological impact (18 items); Gaining rank in national and international festivals related to the specialized field (6 items); Citations (7 items); subject area (3 items); level of cooperation (15 items); Types of scientific productions (54 items); scientific age (3 items); Evaluating, refereeing and monitoring of research, technology and innovation activities (2 items) Author`s role and position (1 item).

Conclusion: The final framework obtained for evaluating Iranian researchers has 11 criteria and 124 items that can be used to compile an author-centered and native scientometrics index that leads to the same evaluation of health and science researchers.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11687678PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_162_24DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

scientific productions
16
framework evaluating
12
items
12
evaluating scientific
8
criteria 124
8
124 items
8
scientific
7
designing framework
4
evaluating
4
productions
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!