Investigating the Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Domestic Research in Iran Compared to Developed Countries

Abstract

Since scientific advancement is considered one of the indicators of development for any country, this progress must also be reflected in other development indicators, such as social and economic indices. The primary objective of this study was to assess Iran's standing in these other development dimensions compared to scientifically equivalent countries using citation-based data collection. Subsequently, the study aimed to uncover the reasons and causes behind the limited effectiveness of scientific outputs in relation to other qualitative dimensions and development indicators. Two data collection methods were employed in this study: firstly, citation-based analyses using annual reports from scientific databases; and secondly, the Delphi method to identify the underlying causes of the existing inefficiencies. Given that the methodological roots of this issue in the scientific field may stem from both internal and external dimensions, the identified factors were categorized into internal and external domains. After two initial Delphi rounds and expert feedback, the categorization was finalized. In the third and fourth rounds, the degree of influence of each factor was examined. The results were extracted upon reaching consensus and stability of expert opinions, while adhering to the principle of anonymity for panel members. The findings derived from comparing critical development indicators in scientifically comparable countries—such as gross domestic product (GDP), journal citation reports, scientific collaboration among researchers, the ratio of patents to published papers, and wealth generation—demonstrate that the impact of Iran's scientific growth is predominantly quantitative. The effectiveness of this growth in influencing other qualitative indicators, compared to peer countries, is significantly limited. The results of the expert panel consensus also revealed that among the external factors, the most influential cause of ineffectiveness is "the management approach in scientific policymaking and the dominant culture of faculty ranking and scoring." Among internal factors, "individual laziness and the level of professional expertise" were found to play the most significant role in creating this discrepancy. The cultural challenges observed in the academic environment are a consequence of policymakers’ overemphasis on promotion criteria and excessive reliance on publication output without adequate attention to domestic concerns.