Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the documents related to research evaluation in Iran critically. This study is of significant importance as it aims to identify the elements and components, provide solutions for the growth and development of research evaluation in the country, and eliminate existing defects, thereby contributing to advancing the research landscape in Iran.Method: In this research, a rigorous approach was taken. Eight evaluation documents belonging to different authorities of the country were selected by purposive sampling method. The information was extracted and analyzed qualitatively and inductively using the document analysis method. This thorough process ensured that the main elements of evaluation systems (input, output, process, achievement, and effect) and the components of each of these elements were accurately extracted and purified from the documents. The selected documents were then analyzed using these elements and components, and possible defects were identified and solutions were presented to improve the state of the research evaluation.Findings: While the eight examined documents are not significantly different in terms of the main elements of research evaluation systems (input, output, process, achievement, and effect), and all these elements can be more or less extracted from all these documents, but the components of each of these elements are different in these documents, which is due to the difference in goals and ultimately leads to many differences in the results of evaluations, and sometimes it has caused many contradictions between the findings even in the same components. The main difference between the reviewed documents is related to the components of the process element, which includes the components of criteria, scope, methods, and evaluation indicators. The following items are the different meanings of the elements, the lack of specific rules and criteria for the evaluation of the same elements and components, and in general, the dominance of the quantitative perspective in the evaluation activities, and considering the amount and number of scientific productions as an evaluation criterion, especially in the quality component of the researches. Conclusion: Currently, the amount of deficiencies in research evaluation activities in the country is high, and cases such as the lack of uniform definitions of concepts and terms in this field, scattering, non-unification, absence of a single center that officially carries out the task of evaluation; lack of professional staff to design and implement research evaluations and the lack of a single goal and strategy for a national research evaluation system can be mentioned. Therefore, solutions such as creating an efficient evaluation system, which facilitates the collection of data and information necessary for evaluation throughout the country, identifying the challenges of transferring policy or management tools from developed and prosperous countries in the field of research evaluation, such as England and Australia, with a national research evaluation system and specialized centers responsible for evaluating and agreeing on elements, components, criteria, and indicators and how to develop them that fit the society be the country's scientist. Finally, it is suggested to use a comprehensive model based on a structured system for the country's research evaluation, which, in addition to paying attention to the internal interactions of the country's research system, also considers its interaction with the surrounding environment.
Baghjanati et al. (Tue,) studied this question.