Keynote Speakers

Abstract

Research assessment has become increasingly dependent on publications, citations, journal prestige, rankings and other quantitative indicators. While these metrics provide valuable signals of research performance, they cannot fully explain why research matters, who benefits from it, or how value is created. This challenge is particularly important in today’s global research landscape, where research systems differ substantially in institutional missions, national priorities, research capacity, cultural contexts and societal needs. This keynote proposes Research Value as a broader framework for rethinking how research should be evaluated. It moves beyond the conventional progression from research outputs to citation-based impact by examining how research contributes to knowledge, policy, professional practice, innovation and society. It argues that research impact should be evaluated through multiple forms of evidence, including metrics, research uptake, policy and practice engagement, qualitative evidence, stakeholder perspectives and demonstrated outcomes. Drawing on emerging scholarship on responsible research assessment and comparative evidence from Asian and other research systems, the keynote highlights the importance of context-sensitive evaluation. Research value is not necessarily expressed in the same way across disciplines, institutions or societies. The keynote ultimately argues that the future of research assessment should not be metric-free, but metric-informed, evidence-based and context-sensitive; moving from counting research to understanding its meaning, contribution and value.

Keywords:

Research Assessment; Research Value; Research Impact; Responsible Research Assessment; Context-Sensitive Evaluation

Abstract

In this keynote, Prof. Abrizah Abdullah challenges the tyranny of citation-based metrics - a distortion of scientific evaluation first exposed by David Colquhoun in Nature (2003) when he warned against the misuse of the impact factor. The presentation proposes a comprehensive three-level framework for assessing transparency and openness in scholarly publishing: micro (researcher practices), meso (journal policies), and macro (institutional accountability). Drawing on her extensive international and national research on Transparency and Openness in Scholarly Publishing (TOSP), which has examined how researchers conceptualise and practice openness across multiple countries and disciplines, identifying core themes and key practices that define transparent scholarly communication - the keynote reveals the critical gap between researcher desires for openness and institutional evaluation cultures. The TOSP Metrics Framework integrates international standards and guidelines on scientific publishing with the Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²) - a macro-level tool for institutional accountability- into a unified system. With eight measurable indicators at each level, the framework offers a responsible, evidence-based approach that rewards transparency and integrity across the scholarly ecosystem. The keynote concludes with a call for STMet to lead the development of this cross-disciplinary framework - a decisive step towards moving beyond the citation-based tyranny that has long obstructed the transition to a more open, transparent, and accountable research culture.