Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management

Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management

Designing Iran’s National Framework for Evaluating Research Excellence: a Framework Synthesis Approach

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Ghasem Azadi
Assistant Professor, Policy evaluation and Monitoring of Science, Technology, and Innovation Department, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran
10.22034/jipm.2025.2069836.2078
Abstract
Research excellence is widely recognized as one of the key pillars of scientific advancement and sustainable development in modern societies. The present study aims to develop a national framework for measuring research excellence in Iran. This research is applied in purpose and descriptive survey in nature. By examining national models of research evaluation and drawing on the experiences of leading countries, a comprehensive framework was developed that is tailored to Iran’s specific socio-cultural, scientific, and policy context. The framework incorporates expert opinions and is grounded in national upstream documents and policies in science and technology. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique was employed to prioritize the identified and validated components and indicators. The framework consists of five main dimensions, each assigned a relative weight based on expert judgment. The most significant dimension is impact beyond the university, with a weight of 43%, highlighting the importance of research that extends its influence beyond academic circles and contributes meaningfully to society. This is followed by ethics and national-Islamic identity at 22%, underscoring the value placed on moral integrity and cultural authenticity in research. Networked research and collaborations account for 17%, emphasizing the role of domestic and international partnerships in advancing knowledge. Research quality and innovation constitute 11%, reflecting the emphasis on originality, rigor, and scholarly contribution, while research environment and capacity, with a weight of 7%, addresses the institutional and infrastructural foundations necessary for sustained research activities. Within the dimension of research quality and innovation, key components include originality and innovation, scientific significance, methodological rigor, and qualitative evaluation. The dimension of impact beyond the university encompasses social, political, and managerial impacts, cultural influence, contributions to the development of modern Islamic civilization, economic outcomes, justice and inclusiveness, as well as qualitative assessment. The research environment and capacity dimension include research infrastructure, research dynamism, sustainability of research efforts, and qualitative evaluation. In the ethics and national-Islamic identity dimension, the components are research ethics, preservation and promotion of national identity, and qualitative evaluation. Finally, the networked research and interactions dimension incorporates domestic collaboration, international cooperation, the promotion of science and technology, and qualitative evaluation. Among the most prioritized indicators are those that align with the fundamental mission of research in the Iranian context: identifying and solving real societal problems, generating original knowledge, achieving inventions and receiving awards, being cited by researchers in Islamic countries, and establishing dynamic scientific networks. These indicators collectively signal a paradigm shift—from evaluating research solely by publication volume to assessing it based on its depth, ethical grounding, and civilizational relevance.
 
Keywords
Research Excellence
Research Quality Indicators
Research Evaluation Framework
Research Governance
Science Policy
Subjects
فهرست منابع
آزادی احمدآبادی، قاسم. 1403. سطوح و شاخص‌های ارزیابی تأثیرات پژوهش براساس تحلیل نظام‌های ارزیابی. ترویج علم 15(1): 76-103. doi: 10.22034/popsci.2024.424371.1306
 
 _____. 1404. تحلیلی بر چارچوب‌های سنجش تعالی پژوهش و ارائه الزامات سیاستی برای ایران. نشریه مطالعات دانش پژوهی 4 (2): 131-111. doi: 10.22034/jkrs.2025.65452.1132
احسانی، وحید، موسی اعظمی، سیّدمحمّدباقر نجفی، و فرامرز سهیلی. 1395. مقدمه­ای بر تبیین جایگاه مفهوم «اثربخشی» در «مدل ذهنی» رایج در ایران در راستای بررسی علل کم­توجهی به اثربخشی پژوهش­های فزایندۀ کشور. سیاستنامۀ علم و فناوری. 6 (2): 5-28. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24767220.1395.06.2.1.6
اسلامی، زهرا، رضوان حکیم‌زاده، و علی‌اکبر صبوری. 1397. مطالعه تطبیقی تبیین چارچوب‌های سنجش کیفیت پژوهش در نظام آموزش عالی ایران با کشورهای انگلیس، استرالیا، هلند، ایتالیا و هنگ کنگ. پژوهش در نظام‌های آموزشی 12 (42): 59-76. doi: 10.22034/jiera.2018.84465
ترک‌زاده، جعفر، مهدی صادقیان سورکی، و رضا عقیلی. 1398. فراترکیب الگوها و چارچوب‌های ارزیابی و ممیزی پژوهش‌های دانشگاهی: رهیافت مفهومی. نشریه خط‌مشی‌گذاری عمومی در مدیریت 10 (1): 105-119. https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/ijpa/Article/790250
سلیمی، قاسم، زینب پیروی‌نژاد، مهدی محمدی، و رضا محمدی. 1398. ارزیابی کیفیت برون‌داد و دستاوردهای پژوهش دانشگاهی: تأمّلی بر مطالعات موجود و دیدگاه‌های کنشگران تولید دانش در نظام دانشگاهی. مطالعات اندازه‌گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی 9 (26): 207-243. doi: 10.22034/emes.2019.36120
سمندرعلی اشتهاردی، مژگان، مهدی گودرزی، و محمدحسین قربانی. 1401. راهبردهای تحقق مأموریت آموزشی در دانشگاه کارآفرین: رویکرد ترکیبی سنتز چارچوب و گروه کانونی. مطالعات راهبردی سیاست‌گذاری عمومی (مطالعات راهبردی جهانی شدن) 12 (44): 108-163. doi: 10.22034/sspp.2022.556123.3233
شریفی، ونداد. 1382. ارزیابی کیفی پژوهش، فصلنامه تازه‌های علوم شناختی. 5، (4): 92-94. http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-310-fa.html (دسترسی در 06/02/1404 )
عباسی، زهره . 1386. ارزیابی کیفیت طرح‌ها و مقاله‌های پژوهشی منتشر شده: بررسی مروری. مطالعات کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات 18 (3): 15-28.
قدسی پور، حسن. 1399. فرایند تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی (AHP). تهران: دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر.
نجمی، منوچهر، و مصطفی باقری. 1399. مدل EFQM 2020: از ایده تا عمل. تهران: سازمان مدیریت صنعتی.
یوسلیانی، غلامعلی، محمدرضا بهرنگی، حمیدرضا آراسته، و بیژن عبدالهی. 1395. طراحی و تدوین شاخص‌های ارزیابی عملکرد نظام پژوهش در آموزش و پرورش (مورد مطالعه: پژوهشگاه مطالعات وزارت آموزش و پرورش با رویکردی کیفی). فصلنامه مطالعات اندازه گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی   6 (14): 109-69.
 
 
References
Abbasi, Z. 2007. Evaluating the quality of published research projects and articles: A review. Library and Information Organization Studies 18 (3): 15–28. [In Persian]
Abramo, G., C. A. D’Angelo, and G. Murgia. 2018. Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities. Journal of Informetrics 12 (3): 706–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21254
Aubert Bonn, N., L. and Bouter. 2023. Research assessments should recognize responsible research practices. Narrative review of a lively debate and promising developments. In Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume II: Scientific Integrity and Institutional Ethics (pp. 441–472). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29455-6_27
Azadi, G. 2024. Evaluation research impacts: levels and indicators. Popularization of Science 15 (1): 76–103. doi: 10.22034/popsci.2024.424371.1306 [In Persian]
_____. 2025. Analysis of Research Excellence Assessment Frameworks and providing policy requirements for Iran. Journal of Knowledge-Research Studies (4) 2: ?. doi: 10.22034/jkrs.2025.65452.1132 [In Persian]
Bai, X., X. Sun, and Y. H. Chiu. 2020. Does China's higher education investment play a role in industrial growth? Technology in Society 63: 101332. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101332
Brunton, G., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. 2020. Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method. Research synthesis methods 11(3), 316-330. https://doi.org/1002/10/jrsm.1399
 
Carli, G., M. R. Tagliaventi, and D. Cutolo, D. 2019. One size does not fit all: the influence of individual and contextual factors on research excellence in academia. Studies in Higher Education 44 (11): 1912–1930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1466873
Carr, M., and I. Chen. 2015. Mode 3 Knowledge Production in the Global Context.   : Springer.
Das, A. K. 2015. Research Evaluation Metrics (Vol. 4). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Ehsani, V., M. Azami, S. M. B. Najafi, and F. Soheili. 2016. An introduction to explaining the position of the concept of "effectiveness" in Iran prevalent "mental model", in order to investigate the reasons of inattention to the effectiveness of the country’s increasing researches. Science and Technology Policy Letters 06 (2): 5–28. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24767220.1395.06.2.1.6 [In Persian]
Eslami, Z., R. Hakimzadeh, and A. A. Saboury. 2018. Comparative Study of Explanation the Framework for Assessment he Quality of Research in Iran's Higher Education System with the Countries of Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Italy and Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Educational Systems 12 (42): 59–76. doi: 10.22034/jiera.2018.84465 [In Persian]
Ferretti, F., A. G. Pereira, D. Vértesy, and S. Hardeman. 2018. Research excellence indicators: time to reimagine the ‘making of’? Science and Public Policy 45 (5): 731–741. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy007
Fong, E. A., and T. Wilhalm. 2020. Paper Mills: An Emerging Threat to the Scholarly Publishing Ecosystem. Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1): 1–6.
Ghodsipour, H. 2019. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Tehran: Amir Kabir University of Technology. [In Persian]
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. California: Sage.
Hamann, J. 2016. The visible hand of research performance assessment. Higher Education 72 (6): 761–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9974-7
Hazelkorn, E. 2010. Assessing Europe's University-Based Research. Dublin: European Commission.
Hengel, E., A. Sevilla, and S. Smith. 2024. Measuring research quality in a more inclusive way: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework. Research Evaluation, rvae013. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae013
Jaroonkhongdach, W., T. Watson, and B. Paltridge. 2011. Three dimensions of research quality. Language Testing and Assessmnt 28 (3) 203–219.
Jonek-Kowalska, I., A. Musioł-Urbańczyk, M. Podgórska, and M. Wolny. 2021. Does motivation matter in evaluation of research institutions? Evidence from Polish public universities. Technology in Society, 67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101782
Kongsmak, K., P. Pungpit, M. R. Kano, S. Komai, W. Piyawattanametha, and O. Phanraksa. 2013. Perceptions of Research Excellence in Thailand and Japan. STI Policy Review 4 (2): 113–135. https://doi.org/10.22675/STIPR.2013.4.2.113
Leydesdorff, L. 2020. Mode 3 Knowledge Production and the Triple Helix: A Theoretical Framework. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71 (5): 525–534.
Moed, H. F. 2010. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Berlin: Springer.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. 2018. Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization. ? : Routledge.
Najmi, M., & M. Bagheri. 2020. EFQM Model 2020: From Idea to Action. Tehran: Industrial Management Organization. [In Persian]
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity.
Penfield, T., M. J. Baker, R. Scoble, and M. C. Wykes. 2014. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23: 21-32. DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvt021
Pinar, M., and T. J. Horne. 2022. Assessing research excellence: evaluating the research excellence framework. Research Evaluation 31 (2): 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab042
Salimi, G., Z. Pairavi Nejad, M. Mohammadi, and R. Mohammadi. 2019. Assessing the Quality of Academic Research Outcomes: A Reflection on the Existing Studies and Views of the Knowledge Production Actors in Academic System. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies 9 (26: 207–243. doi: 10.22034/emes.2019.36120 [In Persian]
Samandar Ali Eshtehardi, M., M. Goudarzi, and M. H. Ghorbani. 2022. Strategies to fulfill the mission of education in the entrepreneurial university: a framework synthesis and focus group study. Strategic Studies of Public Policy 12 (44): 108–162. doi: 10.22034/sspp.2022.556123.3233 [In Persian]
Santos, B. de S. 2007. Beyond Abyssal Thinking: From Global Lines to Ecologies of Knowledge. Review 30 (1): 45–89.
Sharifi, V. 2003. Qualitative research assessment. Updates in Cognitive Sciences 5 (4): 108–110. [In Persian]
Shi, H., Z. Huang, and Q. Zhou. 2024. Research on the construction and improvement path of research quality assurance system in universities. Higher Education Studies, 14 (2): 45–58. https://dx.doi.org/10.25236/FER.2024.070916
Tijssen R. 2020. Re-valuing research excellence: from excellentism to responsible assessment In: E Kraemer-Mbula, R Tijssen, M Wallace, R McLean (Eds.), Transforming Research Excellence: New Ideas from the Global South. Cape Town: African Minds Publisher.
 
Tijssen, R., and E. Kraemer-Mbula. 2018. Research excellence in Africa: policies, perceptions, and performance. Science and Public Policy 45 (3): 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx074
Torkzadeh, J., S. M. Sadeghian and R. Aghili. 2019. Continuing the Patterns and Frameworks of Evaluation and Audit of Academic Research: Conceptual Approach. Public Policy in Administration, 10(1), 105-119 [In Persian]
 
Voudouris, C., and M. Mrowinsk. 2008. The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative: A framework for assessing research excellence. Australian Universities Review 50 (2): 45–55.
Vutsova, A., T. Hristov, and M. Arabadzhieva. 2021. Impact assessment of research evaluation in Bulgaria. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management 15 (2): 341–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2021.1962767
Watt, H. M., and P. W. Richardson. 2020. Motivation of higher education faculty: (How) it matters. International Journal of Educational Research, 100: 101533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101533
Williams, K. and J. Grant. 2018. A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK. Research Evaluation, 1–13. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvx042
Youseliani, G. A., M. R. Behrangi, H.  Arasteh, and B. Abdollahi. 2016. Designing and Codifying Evaluation Indexes of the Performance of Research System in Education; Case Study: Institue of Ministry of Education Studies, Using a Qualitative Approach. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies 6 (14): 69-109. [In Persian]

  • Receive Date 24 August 2025
  • Revise Date 04 November 2025
  • Accept Date 11 November 2025