چکیده:
Researcher evaluation is not just about prioritizing them. It is also there to compensate for their services or to attract them to research organizations. Above, evaluation is used as one of the methods of creating organizational commitment, promoting and guiding research capacity, increasing the level of satisfaction with research work and finally solving real problems and improving the welfare of society. The purpose of this study is to reconstruct the evaluation metrics of researchers based on scientific documents related to this field and finally to provide a suitable comprehensive framework that meets the expectations of a committed, knowledgeable and problem-solving researcher. The method used in this research is a combination of scientific documents in which 118 scientific documents were used. Extracting the strengths and weaknesses of the main and complementary methods of researchers' evaluation, identifying the risks of traditional evaluation and new restorative measures called metamorphoses are among the most important research findings. The comprehensive evaluation model of researchers as the main result of the research, which consists of five levels. According to the model, the researchers' scientific documents are the result of the researcher's individual characteristics multiplied by the research ecosystem, which are measured by judges appropriate to the type and purpose of the research. In any case, research is defensible and useful when it leads to economic improvement or theory development in the medium term and increased authority and public welfare in the long run.
خلاصه ماشینی:
According to online and alternative assessment of impacts, such as the number of downloads or the number of times social media has mentioned them (Wildgaard, 2014), such relatively new criteria based on citations and the number of publications or other metrics ( Maximin, Practice corner: the science and art of measuring the impact of an article) emerge, which are collectively named bibliometrics (Wildgaard, 2014).
These models and 7 criteria include methods that examine the impact of articles through: the number of downloads or online visits, changes in activity related to a specific research, usage by a scientific community, or being mentioned in social media.
(Pepe, 2012) Therefore, many authors have stated that using this index is not appropriate for comparing researchers at different career levels (Haslam, 2009) or newcomers (Trueger, The altmetric score: a new measure for article-level dissemination and impact) (2015).
a. , 2015) 1 Journal Impact Factor 3 JIF has limitations when indicating journal quality (Santangelo, 2017) namely, that it may be unfairly influenced by weak articles that are cited due to their extreme weakness and as a form of public criticism (Agarwal, 2016) (Ravenscroft, 2017), and it may create corruptions in the scientific space resulting in interests between researchers and journal editors ( Maximin, Practice corner: the science and art of Trueger, The altmetric score: a ) (measuring the impact of an article, 2014 2015 ,new measure for article-level dissemination and impact).
(
, 
, 
)
