The process of publishing research and in any journal needs to be re-evaluated from an academic point of view, especially for promotion purposes and for evaluation in general. So how is the researcher could be judged as a good researcher or not? What is the scale?
Khaled Khleifat - Thank you for your question. There are no standardised criteria to judge good researchers that I am aware of. However, there are parameters use in academic promotion by research universities. These include scholarly research influence in their field, IPs, and published research in Science, and Nature, and receiving top awards in research. Add to these, invitations as a speaker to top research conferences, impact factors of publications, H- and G-indices, and making significant progress in their field. Also, grants/funds received, serving as Editors and reviewers to top research journals, authoring/editing research books, serving on national/international research panels/committees, global contribution to research, and the list can continue.
As @Samy Azer mentioned, there are lots of quantifiable measures. You can also take a look at http://aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Looking_Beyond_the_Pointing_Finger.pdf . Overall, however, it comes down to a simple question - the researcher's recognition within his/her researcher's scientific community. An anecdotal measure would be going to a major conference, and if the other researchers (esp. the PhD students who are well-read and are aware of the 'big names') recognize one by name - that's a good indicator of achievement.
The ability to focus on detail, and the willingness to learn will define a good researcher.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism