DORA-compliant measures to assess research quality and impact in biomedical institutions: review of published research, international best practice and Delphi survey
Gagliardi, A. R.; Chen, R. H.; Boury, H.; Albert, M.; Chow, J.; DaCosta, R.; Hoffman, M.; Keshavarz, B.; Kontos, P.; Liu, J.; McAndrews, M. P.; Protze, S.
Show abstract
ObjectiveThe San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocates for assessing biomedical research quality and impact, yet academic organizations continue to employ traditional measures such as Journal Impact Factor. We aimed to identify and prioritize measures for assessing research quality and impact. MethodsWe conducted a review of published and grey literature to identify measures of research quality and impact, which we included in an online survey. We assembled a panel of researchers and research leaders, and conducted a two-round Delphi survey to prioritize measures rated as high (rated 6 or 7 by [≥] 80% of respondents) or moderate (rated 6 or 7 by [≥] 50% of respondents) importance. ResultsWe identified 50 measures organized in 8 domains: relevance of the research program, challenges to research program, or productivity, team/open science, funding, innovations, publications, other dissemination, and impact. Rating of measures by 44 panelists (60%) in Round One and 24 (55%) in Round Two of a Delphi survey resulted in consensus on the high importance of 5 measures: research advances existing knowledge, research plan is innovative, an independent body of research (or fundamental role) supported by peer-reviewed research funding, research outputs relevant to discipline, and quality of the content of publications. Five measures achieved consensus on moderate importance: challenges to research productivity, potential to improve health or healthcare, team science, collaboration, and recognition by professional societies or academic bodies. There was high congruence between researchers and research leaders across disciplines. ConclusionsOur work contributes to the field by identifying 10 DORA-compliant measures of research quality and impact, a more comprehensive and explicit set of measures than prior efforts. Research is needed to identify strategies to overcome barriers of use of DORA-compliant measures, and to "de-implement" traditional measures that do not uphold DORA principles yet are still in use.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 96%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 95%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 95%
- Conceptualizing centers of excellence: A global evidence 95%
- Key factors for effective implementation of healthcare workers support interventions in health organisations after patient safety incidents: a protocol for a scoping review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- An emerging TIMER-2C framework for addressing barriers to research culture and productivity among local healthcare providers in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative study and modified Delphi approach 94%
- Mentorship in Health Research Institutions in Africa: A Systematic Review of Approaches, Benefits, Successes, Gaps and Challenges 94%
- Measures to assess quality of postnatal care: a scoping review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 92%
- Family-centered postnatal training and adherence to newborn care practices in district hospitals in two Indian states: A quasi-experimental intervention study 91%
- Improving the impact of pharmacy interventions in hospitals 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.