Herrmann-Lingen Christoph, Brunner Edgar, Hildenbrand Sibylle, Loew Thomas H, Raupach Tobias, Spies Claudia, Treede Rolf-Detlef, Vahl Christian-Friedrich, Wenz Hans-Jürgen
Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Göttingen Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Institute for Medical Statistics, University of Göttingen Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Ger Med Sci. 2014 Jun 26;12:Doc11. doi: 10.3205/000196. eCollection 2014.
The evaluation of medical research performance is a key prerequisite for the systematic advancement of medical faculties, research foci, academic departments, and individual scientists' careers. However, it is often based on vaguely defined aims and questionable methods and can thereby lead to unwanted regulatory effects. The current paper aims at defining the position of German academic medicine toward the aims, methods, and consequences of its evaluation.
During the Berlin Forum of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) held on 18 October 2013, international experts presented data on methods for evaluating medical research performance. Subsequent discussions among representatives of relevant scientific organizations and within three ad-hoc writing groups led to a first draft of this article. Further discussions within the AWMF Committee for Evaluation of Performance in Research and Teaching and the AWMF Executive Board resulted in the final consented version presented here.
The AWMF recommends modifications to the current system of evaluating medical research performance. Evaluations should follow clearly defined and communicated aims and consist of both summative and formative components. Informed peer reviews are valuable but feasible in longer time intervals only. They can be complemented by objective indicators. However, the Journal Impact Factor is not an appropriate measure for evaluating individual publications or their authors. The scientific "impact" rather requires multidimensional evaluation. Indicators of potential relevance in this context may include, e.g., normalized citation rates of scientific publications, other forms of reception by the scientific community and the public, and activities in scientific organizations, research synthesis and science communication. In addition, differentiated recommendations are made for evaluating the acquisition of third-party funds and the promotion of junior scientists.
With the explicit recommendations presented in the current position paper, the AWMF suggests enhancements to the practice of evaluating medical research performance by faculties, ministries and research funding organizations.
医学研究绩效评估是医学院系、研究重点、学术部门及个体科学家职业系统性发展的关键前提。然而，其往往基于定义模糊的目标和有问题的方法，从而可能导致不良的监管影响。本文旨在明确德国学术医学在其评估的目标、方法及后果方面的立场。
在2013年10月18日于德国科学医学协会（AWMF）柏林论坛上，国际专家展示了医学研究绩效评估方法的数据。相关科学组织代表之间以及三个特设写作小组内部随后进行的讨论形成了本文的初稿。AWMF研究与教学绩效评估委员会及AWMF执行委员会内部的进一步讨论产生了此处呈现的最终一致版本。
AWMF建议对当前医学研究绩效评估体系进行修改。评估应遵循明确界定并传达的目标，且包括总结性和形成性两个部分。知情同行评审很有价值，但仅在较长时间间隔内可行。它们可以由客观指标加以补充。然而，期刊影响因子并非评估单个出版物或其作者的合适指标。科学“影响力”需要多维评估。在此背景下可能具有潜在相关性的指标可包括，例如，科学出版物的标准化引用率、科学界和公众的其他接受形式，以及在科学组织中的活动、研究综合和科学传播。此外，针对第三方资金获取评估和初级科学家晋升给出了差异化建议。
通过本立场文件中提出的明确建议，AWMF建议各医学院系、部委和研究资助组织改进医学研究绩效评估实践。
