Nihon eiseigaku zasshi. Japanese journal of hygiene · 2026
[Priorities in Indicators and Factors Emphasized in Research Evaluation among Members of the Japanese Society for Hygiene: A Web-based Descriptive Study].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Minoura Akira, Kuwahara Keisuke, Shimada Yuhei, Kondo Makoto, Fukushima Hiroko, Sugiyama Takehiro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Researcher evaluation is closely linked to research funding, promotion, and research continuity. In this study, we aimed to identify the indicators emphasized by Japanese hygiene researchers in research evaluation and to provide insights for improving research evaluation systems.
METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a subset of a previously reported dataset. We conducted a web-based survey among Japanese medical researchers from December 2022 to January 2023. Among them, in this study, we focused on researchers belonging to the Japanese Society for Hygiene and collected attitudes of research evaluations. Researchers were asked to rate the importance of researcher evaluation indicators (e.g., number of articles, journal impact factor, number of citations, research funding obtained, and originality) using a five-point scale, and the results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Responses from 85 participants were analyzed. The factors considered most important were the number of articles published in English journals (95.2%) and the originality of the research topic (91.7%). The impact factor of the journal (63.5%) and the number of citations (64.7%) were also highly evaluated. On the other hand, the number of articles published in Japanese journals and award history were considered relatively less important.
CONCLUSIONS: Hygiene is an academic field with a high degree of social implementation, and it is essential to introduce multifaceted evaluations that include academic indicators, policy contributions, contributions to community health, and human resource development. Japanese hygiene researchers emphasize the importance of both quantitative indicators (e.g., number of papers) and qualitative indicators (e.g., contribution to science). Research evaluation systems need to adopt a multifaceted approach rather than relying on a single indicator.
METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a subset of a previously reported dataset. We conducted a web-based survey among Japanese medical researchers from December 2022 to January 2023. Among them, in this study, we focused on researchers belonging to the Japanese Society for Hygiene and collected attitudes of research evaluations. Researchers were asked to rate the importance of researcher evaluation indicators (e.g., number of articles, journal impact factor, number of citations, research funding obtained, and originality) using a five-point scale, and the results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Responses from 85 participants were analyzed. The factors considered most important were the number of articles published in English journals (95.2%) and the originality of the research topic (91.7%). The impact factor of the journal (63.5%) and the number of citations (64.7%) were also highly evaluated. On the other hand, the number of articles published in Japanese journals and award history were considered relatively less important.
CONCLUSIONS: Hygiene is an academic field with a high degree of social implementation, and it is essential to introduce multifaceted evaluations that include academic indicators, policy contributions, contributions to community health, and human resource development. Japanese hygiene researchers emphasize the importance of both quantitative indicators (e.g., number of papers) and qualitative indicators (e.g., contribution to science). Research evaluation systems need to adopt a multifaceted approach rather than relying on a single indicator.