Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Information Science & Knowledge, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Information Science & Knowledge, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran

3 MA. of Information Science & Knowledge, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objectives: In today's world, knowledge is a key factor in the progress of societies. The level of knowledge depends on the production, consumption, and accessibility of reliable scientific resources. Research plays a crucial role in advancing industries, agriculture, and services, making it essential for sustainable development. High-quality research enhances scientific progress and practical applications. Evaluating scientific output in universities and research institutions has become increasingly competitive. Despite the growth in scientific publications, challenges remain in improving research quality. Universities must address these challenges to fulfill their role in knowledge creation. A strong academic environment and a positive research culture contribute to societal development. This study examines the relationship between the academic environment, researchers' experience, and research quality at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between academic environment, researchers' experiences and the quality of research output at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman (SBUK), Iran.
Methodology: This research was applied in purpose and conducted using a scientometric approach. The research population included articles by researchers from SBUK, which were published in journals indexed in the Scopus citation database. SPSS software (version 21) was used for data analysis in this study.
Findings: The findings of this study showed that the researchers' experiences have the potential to significantly predict the quality of research outputs, and an academic environment is not a suitable variable for predicting the quality of research outputs. In other words, it is the growing experience of researchers at SBUK that paves the way for the rising quality of their research outputs. Other findings of this study indicate that there is no relationship between the academic research environment and the quality of research output at SBUK. The analysis of the relationship between researchers' experience and their academic environment also showed that there is no significant relationship between these variables at SBUK.
Discussion: Based on the results of this study, in order to raise the quality of research activities, less emphasis should be placed on the quantity of research output. To provide an incentive for scholars to improve the quality of their research endeavors, academic institutions should stress the importance of the most highly cited research articles. By providing adequate research facilities and equipment (up-to-date libraries, well-equipped laboratories and advanced technologies), universities and institutes of higher education can create the ideal context for optimizing the productivity of research environments. Accordingly, any development in research experiences and the subsequent improvement in the quality of research outputs will enhance the country’s progress and excellence in various scientific fields. In this sense, the ideal goals for the comprehensive development of the country will be ultimately realized. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

Assadollahi, M., Shams, A., & Rezaei, M. (2013). The role of research experience on self-efficacy of Zanjan University of Agriculture graduates. Journal of Agricultural Education Management Research, 31, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.22092/jaear.2015.101383
Barjak, F. (2006). Research productivity in the internet era. Scientometrics, 68, 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0116-y
Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2003). Age effects in scientific productivity: The case of Italian Research Council (CNR). Scientometrics, 58(1), 49–90. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025427507552
Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S., & Fife-Schaw, C. (1995). Research methods in psychology. United Kingdom: Sage.
Diamond, A. M. (1986). What is a citation worth? The Journal of Human Resources, 21(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.2307/145797
Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2011). Criticism on the hg-index. Scientometrics, 86, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0261-1
Hanssen, T. E. S., & Jorgensen, F. (2015). The value of experience in research. Journal of Informatics, 9(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.003
Hanssen, T. E. S., & Jorgensen, F. (2018). The relation between the quality of research, researchers’ experience, and their academic environment. Scientometrics, 114, 933-950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2580-y
Kenna, R., & Berche, B. (2011). Critical mass and the dependency of research quality on group size. Scientometrics, 86(2), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0282-9
Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (2005). Deep smarts: How to cultivate and transfer enduring business wisdom. Harvard Business Review Press.
Noormohammadi, H. A., & Hedaei, F. (2013). Contribution of Iranian women to scientific production and citation in priority areas of science and technology of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iranian Journal of Information Science and Technology, 12(1), 45–65. https://jwsps.alzahra.ac.ir/article_1474.html
Noruzi Chakoli, A. (2011). The role and position of scientometrics in development. Iranian Journal of Information Science and Technology, 27(3), 723–736. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699164.html
Patterson, M. S., & Harris, S. (2009). The relationship between reviewers’ quality scores and number of citations for papers published in the Journal of Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003–2005. Scientometrics, 80(2), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2064-1
Repanovici, A. (2010). Measuring the visibility of universities' scientific production using scientometric methods. Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Educational Technologies: Advanced Educational Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1108/14678041111149345
Salimi, G., & Hosseini, N. (2016). Explaining the framework for excellence in research: A step towards providing a system for the evaluation of research quality in higher education in the country. Rahyaft, 65, 84–97. https://rahyaft.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13616.html
Sharifi, V. (2004). Research qualitative evaluation. Cognitive Science News, 4(5), 108–110.
Soheili, F., & Tavakolizadeh Ravari, M. (2015). Common features of empirical rules known in science: A look at categorization of data by frequency distribution. National Studies of Library and Information Organization, 27(1), 25–42. https://nastinfo.nlai.ir/article_1382.html
Taslimi, M. (2000). Towards university recognition and rethinking. Management Quarterly, 47, 3–19.
Woelert, P. (2013). The economy of memory: Publications, citations, and the paradox of effective research governance. Minerva, 51(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9232-z
Yamani Dozi Sorkhabi, M. (2010). New approaches and perspectives in higher education. Institute for Cultural and Social Studies.
Yazdani, K., Nejat, S. N., Rahimi Movaghar, A., Ghalichi, L., & Khalili, M. (2013). Scientometrics: Overview of concepts, usages, and indicators. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology, 10(4), 78-88. https://irje.tums.ac.ir/article-1-5292-fa.html