International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM)

Reviewing the Academic Promotion Regulation: A Path to the Desired Future within the Context of Disciplinary Differences

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Sahar Kousari 1
Sajedeh Abdi 2

1 Associate Prof., Science and Technology Future Studies Department, National Science Policy Research, Center, Tehran, Iran.

2 Deputy of Research and Technology Department, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran.

10.22034/ijism.2026.2070256.1894
Abstract
Revising the regulations for promoting faculty members in Iran requires attention to disciplinary differences, especially the specific characteristics of the humanities, social sciences, and arts. One of the main challenges in this regard is the overreliance on absolute indicators that cannot represent differences in citation patterns, the life cycle of scientific works, and the type of publication sources in different disciplines. The present study, utilizing a mixed approach, identifies and analyzes normalized and combined indicators in reputable scientometric databases such as Web of Science (InCites) and Scopus (SciVal) and examines their effectiveness in comparing researchers' performance. The results of the analysis and focus group showed that normalized indicators, especially FWCI and Average Percentile, provide significant scientific and practical support for research evaluation. However, the findings suggest that the average percentile index, due to its dual nature (combining average and percentile features), has a higher ability to present a realistic picture of researchers' performance. This index, while considering the volume of scientific production, takes into account the relative position of each work in the disciplinary and temporal context and therefore can be proposed as a more appropriate and fairer option for inclusion in scientific promotion regulations, especially in the fields of humanities, social sciences, and arts.

Keywords

Faculty Promotion Regulations
Academic Promotion
Disciplinary Differences Humanities
Social Sciences
Arts
Field-Normalized Citation Indicators
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
FWCI
Subjects
Arksey, H., & O'malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Asogwa, V. C., Hamisu, M. & Ede, M. O. (2023). Methodological triangulation in educational research: Pros and cons. Propellers Journal of Education, 2(1), 79-87. Retrieved from https://ijvocter.com/pjed/article/view/122/PDF
Bornmann, L. & Haunschild, R. (2016). How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1405-1422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1893-6
Bornmann, L. & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003
Bornmann, L. & Marx, W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.006
Bornmann, L., Stefaner, M., de Moya Anegón, F. & Mutz, R. (2014). Ranking and mapping of universities and research-focused institutions worldwide based on highly-cited papers: A visualization of results from multi-level models. Online Information Review, 38(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-12-2012-0214
Bornmann, L., Tekles, A. & Leydesdorff, L. (2019). How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators. Scientometrics, 119(2), 1187-1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03071-6
Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches. London: Sage.
Dardas, L. A., Malkawi, A. M., Sweis, S., Sweis, N., Al-Khayat, A. & Sawair, F. A. (2023). Mapping two decades of research productivity in the Middle Eastern and Arab countries: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Publications, 11(4), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11040048
Dobos, I. & Sasvári, P. (2023). A comparative analysis of business and economics researchers in the Visegrad group of countries, Austria and Romania based on the data obtained from SciVal and Scopus. Statistika: Statistics & Economy Journal, 103(3), 324-341. https://doi.org/10.54694/stat.2023.5
Doğan, G. & Taşkın, Z. (2020). Humanities: the outlier of research assessments. Information, 11(11), 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11110540
Dorta-González, P., Dorta-González, M. I. & Suárez-Vega, R. (2015). An approach to the author citation potential: measures of scientific performance that are invariant across scientific fields. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1467-1496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1459-4
Elsevier. (2024, November 15). SciVal metric: Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI).  Retrieved from, https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/28192/
Glänzel, W. & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014848323806
Glänzel, W. & Moed, H. F. (2013). Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 96(1), 381-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z
Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Beyond coverage: Toward a bibliometrics for the humanities. Research assessment in the humanities (pp. 115-131). Springer, Cham.
Haslam, N. & Baes, N. (2023). Scientific eminence and scientific hierarchy: Bibliometric prediction of fellowship in the Australian Academy of Sciences. Scientometrics, 128(12), 6659-6674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04870-8
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S. & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., Welch, V. A. (eds) (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://dariososafoula.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-2019-1.pdf
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Huang, M. H. & Chang, Y. W. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819-1828. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20885
Hutchins, B. I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M. & Santangelo, G. M. (2016). Relative citation ratio (RCR): a new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. PLoS Biology, 14(9), e1002541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541
Levander, S. & Riis, U. (2016). Assessing educational expertise in academic faculty promotion. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2016(2-3), 33759. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v2.33759
Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L. & Adams, J. (2019). The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 119(3), 1669-1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03099-8
Lim, B. H., D’Ippoliti, C., Dominik, M., Hernández-Mondragón, A. C., Vermeir, K., Chong, K. K., ... & Flores Bueso, Y. (2025). Regional and institutional trends in assessment for academic promotion. Nature, 638(8050), 459-468. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08422-9
Madani Boroujeni, S. A. & Nasr, A. R. (2009). Triangulation: A strategy for innovating in educational research. Journal of Educational Innovations, 8(30), 53-73. Retrieved from https://noavaryedu.oerp.ir/article_135687_e676a1a28416d5dfcad6df0fb4ea3c57.pdf?lang=en  [In Persian].
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, Netherlands.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal, 339(7716), 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Mondal, H., Deepak, K. K., Gupta, M. & Kumar, R. (2023). The h-Index: Understanding its predictors, significance, and criticism. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 12(11), 2531-2537. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1613_23
Moschini, U., Fenialdi, E., Daraio, C., Ruocco, G. & Molinari, E. (2020). A comparison of three multidisciplinarity indices based on the diversity of Scopus subject areas of authors’ documents, their bibliography, and their citing papers. Scientometrics, 125(2), 1145-1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03481-x
OECD (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development, the measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. OECD publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en
OECD. (2007, February 26). Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati manual. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://web-archive.oecd.org/pdfViewer?path=/2012-06-15/138575-38235147.pdf
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., ... & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1(1), b92. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1018.4643
Santos, A. C. D. S. G. D., Reis, A. D. C., Souza, C. G. D., Santos, I. L., Ferreira, L. A. F., & Senna, P. (2023). Measuring the current state-of-the-art in lean healthcare literature from the lenses of bibliometric indicators. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 30(9), 3508-3533. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2021-0580
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J. & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
SKOS (2024). UNESCO nomenclature for fields of science and technology. Retrieved from https://innovation.world/unesco-nomenclature/
Szomszor, M. (2021, May 20). Introducing the Journal Citation Indicator: A new, field-normalized measurement of journal citation impact. Clarivate Blog. Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/blog/introducing-the-journal-citation-indicator-a-new-field-normalized-measurement-of-journal-citation-impact
UNESCO. (1974, November 27). Recommendation concerning the international standardization of statistics on science and technology. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-concerning-international-standardization-statistics-science-and-technology
Vinkler, P. (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. 1st Edition. Elsevier.
Vinkler, P. (2013). Comparative rank assessment of journal articles. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 712-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.04.006
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
Waltman, L. & van Eck, N. J. (2013). Source-normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics, 96(3), 699-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4
Waltman, L. & van Eck, N. J. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 872-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001
Woolston, C. (2021). Impact factor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions. Nature, 595(7867), 462-463. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01759-5
Zhu, J., Hassan, S. U., Mirza, H. T. & Xie, Q. (2014). Measuring recent research performance for Chinese universities using bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 101(1), 429-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1389-1
International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM)

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 18 August 2026

  • Receive Date 12 September 2025
  • Revise Date 11 November 2025
  • Accept Date 18 August 2026

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us

Copyright Ownership