IDENTIFYING QUALITY CRITERIA OF A SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ADOPTED BY ACADEMIC COMMUNITY: A CASE STUDY

This study aims to provide a realistic viewpoint based on academicians’ views about what the quality of scientific publication means and to provide criteria / recommendations for determining the quality of a scientific research. From qualitative research methods, case study has been preferred in this study which allows comprehending an event or situation in detail. From purposeful sampling techniques, criterion sampling has been used for selection of participants. Participants involve 22 academicians who work at a higher education institution and take academic incentive payment. 22 percent of participants (n=5) include research assistants, 22 percent (n=5) assistant professors; 31 percent (n=7) associate professors; and 27 percent (n=6) professors. Semistructured interview form has been used for collecting qualitative data. When themes and codes are analyzed which appear as a result of study, it is observed that academicians regard the following criteria as an indicator of quality in a research: “Appropriateness of Abstract” theme; “Contribution to Literature” theme, “Originality” theme, “Identification of Scope and Focus” theme, “Scientific” theme, “Comprehensiveness” theme, “Reporting” theme, “Ethic” theme. There comes out 8 themes and 28 codes within the category of research quality criteria adopted by academicians.

PDF

___

Albuquerque, U. P. (2009). Quality of Scientific Publications - Considerations of an Editor at the End of Mandate. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 23(1), 292-296.

Barbour, R. (2001). Checklists for Improving Rigour in Qualitative Research: A Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117.

Berezow, A. B., & Hartsfield, T. (2012). What Separates Science From Non-science? https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_nonscience_106278.html Accepted: 6.03.2019

Boaz, A., & Ashby, D. (2003). Fit For Purpose? Assessing Research Quality For Evidence Based Policy And Practice. London: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.

Britten, N. (1999). Qualitative Interviews in Healthcare. In Pope C, Mays N (eds) Qualitative Research in Health Care. pp 11–19. London: BMJ Books

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality Criteria For Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: A View From Social Policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261- 276.

Bümen, N. T., Ünver, G., & Baflbay, M. (2010). Öğrenci Görüşlerine Göre Ortaöğretim Alan Öğretmenliği Tezsiz Yüksek Lisans Programı Derslerinin Incelenmesi: Ege Üniversitesi Örneği. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 9(17), 41–62.

ERA (2010). External Research Assessment. Karolinska Institutet: Stockholm.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000). Designing High Quality Research in Special Education: Group Experimental Design. The Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 2–18.

Heale, R. & Twycross, A. (2018). What is a Case Study? Evidence-Based Nursing, 21, 7-8.

Lohr, K. N. (2004). Rating the Strength of Scientific Evidence: Relevance for Quality Improvement Programs. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16(1), 9–18.

Mårtensson, P., Fors, U., Wallin, S. B., Zander, U., & Nilsson, G. H. (2016). Evaluating Research: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Assessing Research Practice and Quality. Research Policy, 45(3), 593-603.

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel Araştırma ve Değerlendirme Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Rubin, H.J. and Rubin I.S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of hearing data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Straus, S.E., Richardson, W.S., Glasziou, P., & Haynes, R.B. (2005). Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach It. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone.

Szklo, M. (2006). Quality of Scientific Articles. Revista de Saúde Pública, 40, 30-35.

West, S., King, V., & Carey, T. (2002). Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Wickson, F. & Carew, A. L. (2014). Quality Criteria and Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: Learning from Transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3), 254-273.

Woods N. F. & Calanzaro M. (1980). Nursing Research: Theory and Practice. St Louis: Mosby.