This would depends on whether they are the professional or academic research centers. The professional research would focus on the practical outcomes while the academics are more keen on multiple referencing and research extension.  Most common are the KPIs approach, but it can be too general, and the specific indicators goes back to the nature of the institutions. Certainly the fundamental objectives of the formation of institutions determines which 'key' indicators to be included and evaluated (and differently weighted as well).

This would depends on whether they are the professional or academic research centers. The professional research would focus on the practical outcomes while the academics are more keen on multiple referencing and research extension.  Most common are the KPIs approach, but it can be too general, and the specific indicators goes back to the nature of the institutions. Certainly the fundamental objectives of the formation of institutions determines which 'key' indicators to be included and evaluated (and differently weighted as well).

Dear Dr. Ali,

Thank you for your reply. There are not that much difference between professional and academic research centers regarding the evaluation of performance, one can alter the assessment form accordingly.

I am suggesting that the evaluation exercise would be more effective if we are dealing with different nature of research institutions. Moreover, the different weightage scoring approach (using common evaluation mechanism) can also be applicable to various nature of research disciplines. For example, more weight given on article referencing impact factor for pure science and medical discipline, while more weight given on social-economics benefit impact  for social science discipline.   

Dear Hazim,

My research group - SCImago Group-, develops and uses bibliometric indicators to do that. Currently we use Scopus data and publish two bibliometric sources with these data. The SCImago Journal & Country Rank is a free access portal in which to can find data for countries and journals

The other source is the global ranking SCImago Institutions Ranking to evaluate institutions. It takes into account those organizations from any country, with at least 100 documents published in the last year of the five-year period. The chronological range extends from 2003 to 2012 and each report represents the five - year period with indicators

The SIR reports are not league tables. The ranking parameter –the scientific output of institutions - should be understood as a default rank, not our ranking proposal. The only goal of this report is to characterize research outcomes of organizations so as to provide useful scientometric information to institutions, policymakers and research manager so they are able to analyze, evaluate and improve their research results.

The report shows a set of bibliometric indicators that unveil some of the main dimensions of research devoted institutions’ performance. SIR Reports aim at becoming an evaluation framework of research performance for Research Organizations. The reports show indicators that will help users evaluate the scientific impact, thematic specialization, output size and international collaboration networks of institutions.

I hope this information be helpful for you.

I agree with Noor Azman Ali view point. Both i.e. professional and academic research centers can't be compared to evaluate their performance. Therefore, separate evaluation criteria would be a practical idea.

Evaluation of academic research institutes has been done by National Assessment and Accreditation Council, Bangalore, India, using various criteria, trying to bring all of them at par. Same may not be used for professional institutes, but similar can be formulated. There are many aspects in both, which cannot be compared.

Dear Hazim,

Comparisons are always relative. The best way would be to assess whether these centres work or not according to the original intentions and their outputs suit these plans. Have these institutes achieved the planned scientific, economic, cultural and societal results? Or, what are the role of these centres in improving practical and theoretical conditions and aims? The factors you mentioned in presenting the thread are elegant ways of comparison but cannot express specifically and functionally the performance in Iraq.

Dear Dr. Al-Haddad,

thank you so much for reply.

Best Regards,

Hazim

Dear Bozsik,

thank you for your comment but I did not understand the last sentence about Iraq!!!

Hazim H. Tahir

I agree that evaluation of such national research centers are relative since it depends on input and output and many other factors. However, it is like to evaluate engineering with health sciences. Therefore, it depends on many factors such as funds, staff of researchers, policy of the government, so, I would suggest to use similar forms as universities used for evaluation if they are academic research centers. 

Dear Prof. Sherif,

Thank you so much for your reply. I agree 100% with you. I am trying to get hold of some Evaluation Forms of any sorts (Academic or Professional Research Centers kinds); and we can alter it to suit our needs after that. Thanks again

Hazim H. Tahir

i can evaluate  the performance  of a research center on the basis

1) good  publications

2) training given to indutries

3) developing  new technologies

4) successful transfer of technologies

The above criteria applies to Universities centers and R&D labs

ultimately we have to answer for our salaries  by developing newer  technolgies

you give weight age as for

1. 15%

2.15%

3.30&

4.40%

sorry it is   3. 30%

The stage has come the research centers  have to earn at least 50% - develop newer

technologies however small  they can be  --

we initially encourage  to do research in appropriate technology- for example replacing

the wheels of horse driven coach by tubeless tire -- electrification of the coach using solar energy panels- Solar powered auto rickshaws  and so on

mechanical engg.,  dept can do this work