مقایسه تطبیقی الگوی ارزیابی پژوهش در کشورهای توسعه یافته آمریکای شمالی و ایران

Abstract
Purpose:
Research evaluation systems play a critical role in shaping national research policies, enhancing scientific productivity, and strengthening the international visibility and credibility of higher education systems. These systems not only influence the behavior of researchers and academic institutions but also guide the allocation of financial resources, determine research priorities, and contribute to long-term national development strategies. In recent decades, developed countries have increasingly adopted comprehensive, systematic, and multidimensional models for evaluating research performance. These models go beyond purely quantitative indicators and seek to integrate qualitative expert judgments, peer review mechanisms, ethical standards, and considerations of societal and economic impact. The present study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of research evaluation models in developed North American countries and Iran in order to better understand how different evaluation approaches affect research performance and policy outcomes. The United States and Canada were selected as representative and leading cases of research evaluation systems in North America due to their advanced research infrastructures, decentralized governance structures, long-standing traditions of academic autonomy, and influential roles in global knowledge production. Their research evaluation frameworks were systematically compared with the components, mechanisms, and practices of research evaluation in Iran’s higher education system to identify similarities, differences, strengths, weaknesses, and potential areas for policy learning, adaptation, and improvement.

Methodology:
This study is applied in terms of its objective and adopts a qualitative, library-based research design. It employs a descriptive–comparative methodology grounded in Bereday’s (1969) classical comparative education model, which consists of four sequential stages: description, interpretation, juxtaposition, and comparison. Data were collected through an extensive and systematic review of academic literature, policy documents, national regulations, official reports, and institutional evaluation frameworks related to research assessment in the higher education systems of the United States, Canada, and Iran. Relevant sources included government publications, reports from research councils and funding agencies, university evaluation guidelines, and international databases. Based on these materials, key components of research evaluation systems were extracted, classified, and analyzed comparatively. The analytical framework focused on multiple dimensions of research evaluation, including structural and governance arrangements, managerial and organizational mechanisms, financial and funding models, ethical and regulatory considerations, and strategic orientations. Particular attention was paid to evaluation criteria, performance indicators, monitoring processes, and the role of research evaluation in achieving national development and innovation goals.

Findings:
The findings of the study indicate that the research evaluation models in North American countries and Iran share similarities across six major components. These include: (1) the existence of clearly defined strategic objectives aimed at improving research quality, productivity, and relevance; (2) efforts toward the institutionalization and formal regulation of research evaluation processes within higher education systems; (3) the widespread use of a common scientometric language, such as publication counts, citation indicators, impact factors, and research output metrics; (4) growing sensitivity to research ethics and scientific integrity, including concerns about plagiarism, misconduct, and academic honesty; (5) the presence of ranking systems and mechanisms for identifying, rewarding, and supporting elite researchers and research-intensive institutions; and (6) an increasing emphasis on mission-oriented research, applied studies, and the social effectiveness and usefulness of scientific activities.

However, significant differences were identified in six other key components. These differences relate to: (1) governance and managerial structures, where North American systems benefit from decentralized, transparent, and relatively autonomous governance, while Iran’s research evaluation system remains more centralized and state-driven; (2) paradigms and evaluation criteria, with the United States and Canada employing more diverse, flexible, and discipline-sensitive assessment approaches compared to the predominantly quantitative, output-oriented, and uniform criteria in Iran; (3) financial and support mechanisms, including competitive funding models, performance-based budgeting, and strong links between evaluation outcomes and resource allocation in North America; (4) monitoring and control processes over research activities, which are more systematic, independent, and evidence-based in developed countries; (5) research priorities and value systems, where societal needs, innovation, interdisciplinary research, and knowledge commercialization receive greater emphasis in North America; and (6) international interactions and global positioning, with the United States and Canada demonstrating higher levels of international collaboration, researcher mobility, and influence within global research networks compared to Iran.

Conclusion:
The results of this study suggest that research evaluation should be understood as more than a technical tool for measuring scientific quality or academic output. Rather, it functions as a strategic policy instrument for enhancing scientific authority, increasing international credibility, improving research efficiency, and strengthening interactions between universities, research institutes, industry, government, and society. The comparative analysis highlights that effective research evaluation systems are those that align evaluation indicators with broader national, social, and economic goals, promote transparency and accountability, and encourage meaningful international engagement. For Iran, greater attention to indicators such as high-quality publication and dissemination, international collaboration, responsible citation behavior, ethical research conduct, interdisciplinarity, and responsiveness to societal and developmental needs can significantly improve the direction, coherence, and effectiveness of research policies.