Research assessment systems are a very important and complex issue in the research scope, in this way, I found an interesting matrix that, in my opinion, defines very well, at a high level, what research is, and what it can or must be evaluated:
In this matrix of assessment, we can clearly distinguish the main research topics, so we can see:
The research main actors like the researcher, the research group, the department, the institution, or the research fields. Based on this, we can make a series of questions related to the assessment: the purpose is it to inform the allocation of research funding, to improve performance, or to increase regional engagement?
Then there are questions about which output dimensions should be considered: scholarly impact, innovation and social benefit, or sustainability?
In this way, describes four assessment methodologies: peer review, which provides a judgment based on expert knowledge; end-user reviews, such as customer satisfaction; quantitative indicators, including bibliometric and other types of measures; self-evaluation.
These four methodologies can be — and often are — combined into a multi-dimensional assessment.
Bibliometric indicators have a central role in research assessment systems, and the main types are: basic indicators (easy to obtain and available for decades), normalized indicators (correcting for particular biases) and advanced indicators (based on advanced networks analyses)
You can see all this information in this article. This article if from 2011, so it’s not new, but I think that the concepts that appeared in the matrix, are key concepts and a good summary of what research scope is. Do you agree?