Foreign experience in evaluating the efficiency of scientific and pedagogical research




efficiency of research, scientometric indicators, scientometric databases, altmetrics, reproducibility of research, digital library systems, repositories


The article is devoted to the analysis of foreign experience in determining the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of scientific and pedagogical research. Thus, the problems of qualified analysis of the source base and reproducibility of research, the use of formal scientometric indicators, altmetric approaches, and digital libraries are considered. Another conclusion of authors is to ensure the reliability of the results, and, accordingly, for higher evaluation indicators of research performance, peer-reviewed publications indexed in scientometric databases should be used as primary sources. At the same time, the implementation of a digital identifier (first of all DOI), the provision of open data of research results, and the availability of copies in digital institutional repositories also contribute to higher performance indicators of scientific and pedagogical research. Despite the implementation of various new scientometric indicators, still the most used is the citation (H-index). Altmetric indicators receive data from social networks. Articles are published in them have a faster release of the results. But many scientists still doubt whether there is a direct relationship between the publication impact according to the classical and altmetric approaches. The main reason for this is the authors’ ability to artificially influence some impact indicators.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract views: 156 / PDF (Ukrainian) views: 40


San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2018), URL

Opys ramky tsyfrovoi kompetentnosti dlia hromadian Ukrainy (2020), URL

The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2020), URL!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/520429a.pdf

Digital Agenda for Ukraine – 2020 (2021), URL

Reproducibility of scientific results in the EU (2021), URL

Baheti, A.D., Bhargava, P.: Altmetrics: A Measure of Social Attention toward Scientific Research. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology 46(6), 391–392 (2017), doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.06.005 DOI:

Barnes, C.: The Use of Altmetrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Impact. Australian Academic and Research Libraries 46(2), 121–134 (2015), doi:10.1080/00048623.2014.1003174 DOI:

Barroso, J., Gollop, C.J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J., Pearce, P.F., Collins, L.J.: The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western Journal of Nursing Research 25(2), 153–178 (2003), doi:10.1177/0193945902250034 DOI:

Brown, M.: Is Almetrics an Acceptable Replacement for Citation Counts and the Impact Factor? Serials Librarian 67(1), 27–30 (2014), doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.915609 DOI:

Carroll, C., Booth, A.: Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: Is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Research Synthesis Methods 6(2), 149–154 (2015), ISSN 17592887, doi:10.1002/jrsm.1128 DOI:

Chang, Y.W.: Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles. Scientometrics 126(4), 3373–3391 (2021), doi:10.1007/ s11192-021-03898-y DOI:

Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., Wouters, P.: Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66(10), 2003–2019 (2015), doi: DOI:

Ćurković, M., Košec, A.: Bubble effect: Including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18(1) (2018), doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0599-2 DOI:

Evans, D.: Database searches for qualitative research. Journal of the Medical Library Association 90(3), 290–293 (2002)

Fang, Z., Costas, R., Tian, W., Wang, X., Wouters, P.: An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics. Scientometrics 124, 2519–2549 (2020), doi: DOI:

Formanek, M.: Solving SEO issues in DSpace-based digital repositories. Information Technology and Libraries 40(1) (2021), doi:10.6017/ITAL.V40I1.12529 DOI:

Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., Valderrama-Zurián, J.C.: Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics 10(1), 98–109 (2016), doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008 DOI:

Hammersley, M.: The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 30(3), 287–305 (2007), doi:10.1080/17437270701614782 DOI:

Ibrahim, N., Habacha Chaibi, A., Ben Ahmed, M.: New scientometric indicator for the qualitative evaluation of scientific production. New Library World 116(11-12), 661–676 (2015), doi:10.1108/NLW-01-2015-0002 DOI:

Karmakar, M., Banshal, S.K., Singh, V.: A large-scale comparison of coverage and mentions captured by the two altmetric aggregators: and PlumX. Scientometrics 126(5), 4465–4489 (2021), doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03941-y DOI:

Kochhar, S.K., Ojha, U.: Index for objective measurement of a research paper based on sentiment analysis. ICT Express 6(3), 253–257 (2020), doi:10.1016/j.icte.2020.02.001 DOI:

Konkiel, S.: Altmetrics a 21st-century solution to determining research quality. Online 37(4), 10–15 (2013)

Lin, D., Crabtree, J., Dillo, I., Downs, R.R., Edmunds, R., Giaretta, D., De Giusti, M., L’Hours, H., Hugo, W., Jenkyns, R., Khodiyar, V., Martone, M.E., Mokrane, M., Navale, V., Petters, J., Sierman, B., Sokolova, D.V., Stockhause, M., Westbrook, J.: The TRUST Principles for digital repositories. Scientific Data 7(1) (2020), doi:10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7 DOI:

Loan, F.A., Sheikh, S.: Is Google scholar really scholarly? Library Hi Tech News 35(3), 7–9 (2018), doi:10.1108/LHTN-11-2017-0078 DOI:

Marco-Cuenca, G., Salvador-Oliván, J.A., Arquero-Avilés, R.: Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions. Scientometrics 126(6), 5143–5164 (2021), doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03977-0 DOI:

Martı́n-Martı́n, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., Delgado López-Cózar, E.: Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics 12(4), 1160–1177 (2018), doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 DOI:

Martı́n-Martı́n, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., Delgado López-Cózar, E.: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 126(1), 871–906 (2021), doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4 DOI:

Masson, A., De Marchi, G., Merin, B., Sarmiento, M.H., Wenzel, D.L., Martinez, B.: Google dataset search and DOI for data in the ESA space science archives. Advances in Space Research 67(8), 2504–2516 (2021), doi:10.1016/j.asr.2021.01.035 DOI:

Methley, A.M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., Cheraghi-Sohi, S.: PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research 14(1) (2014), ISSN 14726963, doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0 DOI:

Mingers, J., Meyer, M.: Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics 112(2), 1111–1121 (2017), doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x DOI:

Mingers, J., O’Hanley, J.R., Okunola, M.: Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research. Scientometrics 113(3), 1627–1643 (2017), doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2532-6 DOI:

Nuzzolese, A.G., Ciancarini, P., Gangemi, A., Peroni, S., Poggi, F., Presutti, V.: Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality? Scientometrics 118(2), 539–562 (2019), doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2988-z DOI:

Oleksyuk, V.P.: Designing of university cloud infrastructure based on Apache Cloudstack. Information Technologies and Learning Tools 54(4), 153–164 (2016), doi:10.33407/itlt.v54i4.1453 DOI:

Ozdemir, O., Hendricks, C.: Instructor and student experiences with open textbooks, from the California open online library for education (Cool4Ed). Journal of Computing in Higher Education 29(1), 98–113 (2017), doi:10.1007/s12528-017-9138-0 DOI:

Poirrier, M., Moreno, S., Huerta-Cánepa, G.: Robust h-index. Scientometrics 126(3), 1969–1981 (2021), doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03857-z DOI:

Rivai, M.A., Wang, G.: Cloud computing platform services in the university libraries for digital repository. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering 9(1), 285–294 (2020), doi:10.30534/ijatcse/2020/43912020 DOI:

Santana-Perez, I., da Silva, R.F., Rynge, M., Deelman, E., Pérez-Hernández, M., Corcho, O.: A semantic-based approach to attain reproducibility of computational environments in scientific workflows: A case study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 8805, 452–463 (2014), doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14325-5_39 DOI:

Scotti, V., De Silvestri, A., Scudeller, L., Abele, P., Topuz, F., Curti, M.: Novel bibliometric scores for evaluating research quality and output: A correlation study with established indexes. International Journal of Biological Markers 31(4), e451–e455 (2017), doi:10.5301/jbm.5000217 DOI:

Semerikov, S.O., Mintii, I.S.: Mapping lifelong learning quality: a bibliometric study. Educational Dimension 3, 1–8 (Dec 2020), doi:10.31812/ed.622 DOI:

Shaw, R.L., Booth, A., Sutton, A.J., Miller, T., Smith, J.A., Young, B., Jones, D.R., Dixon-Woods, M.: Finding qualitative research: An evaluation of search strategies. BMC Medical Research Methodology 4, 1–5 (2004), doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-5 DOI:

Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., Mayr, P.: The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126(6), 5113–5142 (2021), doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 DOI:

Strübing, J., Hirschauer, S., Ayaß, R., Krähnke, U., Scheffer, T.: Criteria for qualitative research. A stimulus for discussion [Gütekriterien qualitativer Sozialforschung. Ein Diskussionsanstoß]. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie 47(2), 83–100 (2018), ISSN 03401804, doi:10.1515/zfsoz-2018-1006 DOI:

Tracy, S.J.: Qualitative quality: Eight a “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16(10), 837–851 (2010), doi:10.1177/1077800410383121 DOI:

Weissgerber, S.C., Brunmair, M., Rummer, R.: Null and Void? Errors in Meta-analysis on Perceptual Disfluency and Recommendations to Improve Meta-analytical Reproducibility. Educational Psychology Review (2021), doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09579-1 DOI:

Yu, H., Murat, B., Li, L., Xiao, T.: How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis. Scientometrics 126(5), 4437–4463 (2021), doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03954-7 DOI:

Zhang, L., Ma, L.: Does open data boost journal impact: evidence from Chinese economics. Scientometrics 126(4), 3393–3419 (2021), doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03897-z DOI:






How to Cite

Oleksiuk, V.P., Ivanova, S.M. and Mintii, I.S., 2021. Foreign experience in evaluating the efficiency of scientific and pedagogical research. Educational Dimension [Online], 4, pp.58–76. Available from: [Accessed 23 May 2024].
Received 2020-11-10
Accepted 2021-06-20
Published 2021-06-22

Similar Articles

1-10 of 90

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)