A Novel Synthetic Index of Two Counts and Mathematical Model for Researcher Evaluation

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a novel synthetic index of two counts and mathematical model for researcher evaluation. Design/methodology/approach –A synthetic index L for researcher evaluation considering both the total number of other citations (C) and non-academic impact (I), and a synthetic evaluation model is proposed in this paper. C and I are verified impact indexes. According to investigation by Delphi method, researchers are divided into five different classes of “below average”, “average”, “good”, “excellent” and “stellar”. The threshold values for counts C of grey class “stellar” are determined by deep investigation. The possibility functions of the two counts C and I on four grey classes of “below average”, “average”, “good”, and “excellent” are built. Findings –The novel synthetic index of two counts and mathematical model for researcher evaluation providing a better way to conduct researcher assessment. Practical implications –The synthetic index L presented in this paper can be used to evaluate a researcher. It’s more reasonable than the current research assessment indexes such as the number of publications and the numbers of so called high quality journal publications, and the amount of granted funds, etc. The synthetic index L reflect the actual value created by a researcher. No artificial manoeuvre can change them significantly. Originality/value –A synthetic index L for researcher evaluation considering both the total number of other citations (C) and non-academic impact (I), and a synthetic evaluation model is proposed in this paper

Do not try to evaluate research results in a hurry

We analysed the problems of the current research evaluation, and concluded that research results should be evaluated after their impacts (academic or non-academic) are fully released, and not immediately after publication. Many of the problems associated with mismanagement in research could be eradicated if people did not try to evaluate research results immediately after publication