Structural Challenges in Medical Research Evaluation: A Web-Based Questionnaire Survey for Medical Researchers
Yuhei Shimada, Akira Minoura, Keisuke Kuwahara, Makoto Kondo, Hiroko Fukushima, Takehiro Sugiyama
Volume 8 Issue 2 Pages 1-31
First Published: March 31, 2026
[in Japanese]
Abstract
Medical research evaluation has long been criticized for its overemphasis on metrics such as impact factors. To clarify why non-autonomous research evaluation practices persist, this study analyzes the challenges medical researchers face in achieving autonomous research evaluation.
After categorizing prior research into three main areas—value, means, and fairness—we attempted empirical analysis using open-ended responses from a questionnaire survey targeting medical researchers. A total of 98 responses were analyzed.
While existing evaluation practices are criticized for failing to reflect specific values like education or clinical practice, quantitative evaluation was positioned as a second-best means. Researchers also perceived risks of unfair evaluation stemming from evaluators’ subjectivity and cognitive limitations.
Medical researchers appear to accept quantitative evaluation with resignation, fearing that shifting to qualitative evaluation without changing the underlying value system would result in even more unfair assessments. The overemphasis on metrics can be reframed as a problem of values and fairness rather than the means themselves.
Given these structural difficulties, medical research evaluation requires constant reexamination through continuous governance.
Key words
Research evaluation, research integrity, impact factor, governance
