Qualitative versus Quantitative Evaluation of Scientists Impact: A Medical Toxicology Tale

Evaluation of scientists working in a specific area of science is necessary, as they may strive for same limited resources, grants and academic promotions. One of the most common and accepted methods of assessing the performance and impact of a scientist is calculating the number of citations for their publications. However, such method suffer from certain shortcomings. It has become more and more obvious that evaluation of scientists should be qualitative in addition to quantitative. Moreover, the evaluation process should be pragmatic and reflective of the priorities of an institution, a country or an intended population. In this context, a scoring scale called 360-degree researcher evaluation score is proposed in this paper. Accordingly, scientists are evaluated in 5 independent domains including (I) science development, (II) economic impact, (III) policy impact, (IV) societal impact and (V) stewardship of research. This scale is designed for evaluation of impacts resulted from research activities and thus it excludes the educational programs done by a scientist. In general, it seems necessary that the evaluation process of a scientist’s impact moves from only scintometric indices to a combination of quantitative and qualitative indices.

Qualitative versus Quantitative Evaluation of Scientists Impact: A Medical Toxicology Tale Keywords:

Comparative Effectiveness Research , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Employee Performance Appraisal , Journal Impact Factor , Social Change